Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2019

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2019 [1].

Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scripts

[edit]
Nominator(s): A. Parrot (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The decipherment of these scripts, of which hieroglyphs are the most famous, was a much longer process than it is often thought of as being. I've made an effort to give credit to everybody who contributed to the process of decipherment, and to give an impartial account of the controversy between the two who contributed the most, Jean-François Champollion and Thomas Young. I've also tried to write in British English, given that all the English-speaking figures in the story were British, but some Americanisms may have crept in. This article complements our FA on the Rosetta Stone and GA on Champollion, and it has been informally looked over by User:Andrew Dalby, who contributed to the former, and User:Iry-Hor, who has helped maintain and improve the latter.

The tables of glyphs use WikiHiero, but unfortunately WikiHiero characters don't display in the mobile version of Wikipedia. I've filed a bug report but do not know if it will be resolved. There are alternatives to WikiHiero (images and Unicode characters), but they aren't as flexible or easy to integrate into a table as WikiHiero. I hope this problem will not be an obstacle to the article's passage. A. Parrot (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review Support by Iry-Hor

[edit]

I would be glad to review this stellar contribution to Wikipedia. I will write my comments shortly.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will write all the things I see, but some might be nitpicking, so feel free to ignore them:

  • Lede: " in the fourth and fifth centuries AD", should it be "fourth or fifth" or is it really fourth and fifth ? We the "and" I understand this as a gradual loss. Leave it like that if this is so.
It was a gradual loss, and the last hieroglyphic text was written in the fourth century and the last in demotic in the fifth. See also my response to the point about decline in the body text.
  • Lede: "Despite some attempts at decipherment by Islamic and European scholars..." given the nice way of explaining the history of decipherment in the lede, it seems to me that it would be better to specify the periods meant here, e.g. as in "Despite some attempts at decipherment by Islamic and European scholars during the Middle Ages and Renaissance periods..."
I've specified the time period, although I think with the added words it was best to rearrange the sentence a bit.
  • Lede: "perception of hieroglyphs as ideographic hampered efforts to understand them up through the 18th century." I seem to remember that some people continued to hold such ideas in the early 19th century as well, i.e. concurrently with Young and Champollion's earliest efforts. If so, you might want to end with "[...] understand them up through the 18th and early 19th centuries".
Hard to say. The ideographic orthodoxy held sway up until Warburton, but after his time there seems to have been some willingness to acknowledge phonetic signs might exist even in the hieroglyphic script (e.g., in Zoëga's work), even if many people were attached to hieroglyphic mysticism. I was thinking particularly of Young, whose failure to acknowledge phoneticism outside the cartouches is often wrongly attributed to the old orthodoxy. As Iversen says and the article mentions, he looked for phonetic signs but was stymied by the wild variety of spellings, not by the assumption that such signs did not exist.
  • Lede: "many of the phonetic signs in demotic. He also identified the meaning of many hieroglyphs" could we replace of the two "many" to avoid repetition?
Done.
  • Lede: "grammar and vocabulary of Egyptian" perhaps replace with "grammar and vocabulary of Ancient Egyptian" ?
I generally refer to the language as just "Egyptian", as that is its name, but in this case I suppose the distinction is necessary. Done.

Now on the first section:

  • "sometime before 3000 BC." Could you perhaps give a reference here ? I think that the latest research, notably from the discoveries of tomb U-j, has pushed this back to c. 3100 BC. I will see if I can find Dreyer's opinion on this.
Allen 2014, the citation for this sentence, actually says c. 3200, but between the uncertain dating for the Protodynastic and the problem of what actually counts as a writing system, I thought it safer to be vague. I'll specify c. 3200 if you want.
Thanks, I think c. 3200 is best indeed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Beautiful paragraph from "Many Greek and Roman[...]" until "[...]same consonants" !
  • "Both hieroglyphic and demotic died out during the third through fifth centuries AD" seems to contradict the lede that says "fourth and fifth".
I've tried to clarify this. The decline, which coincided with the sharp decline of the temple priesthoods, began in the third century. Loprieno, p. 26: "the third century CE represents the turning point: hieroglyphic texts exhibit a progressive decay both in their grammatical structure and in the formal appearance of the signs". Egypt in Late Antiquity by Roger Bagnall, which is in Loprieno's footnotes for this passage, says that only at the temples of Hermonthis and Philae did knowledge of hieroglyphs even survive into the fourth century. However, the scripts didn't completely cease to be understood, as the lead section puts it, until they died out at Philae. I hope this no longer looks like a contradiction.
  • "[...]Egyptian example of such a source was the history of Egypt written by Manetho in[...]" this sentence would be better with the explicit name of this work Aegyptiaca. You can wikilink it to the appropriate section on Manetho's article.
Done.

Second section:

  • "Europeans were ignorant of Coptic as well. European scholars" I think that by the context it is clear that the second sentence pertains to European scholars and so I would advocate for remving the second "Europeans" to avoid repetition. It is debatable however so this is as you see fit.
Done.
  • "Coptic monks, and no Europeans of the time had the opportunity to learn from one of these monks" It might be worth stating why this is so. I presume it is because Coptic monks were in Egypt (as today), however this may not be clear to all readers.
Correct; Hamilton says that the way Europeans in this period tended to learn non-European languages (in the 15th century, even Greek!) was for a native speaker to visit Europe and be recorded, and no one who knew Coptic seems to have gone to Europe in that time. I've clarified.
  • "European contact with Egypt increased during the 18th century. More Europeans visited the country and saw its ancient inscriptions firsthand,[38] and as Europeans collected antiquities, the number of texts available for study increased.[39] Jean-Pierre Rigord became the first European[...]" too many "European(s)" here for my taste. Could we perhaps remove the middle ones ?
Done.

I have reached the "Reading texts" section with no further comments for the moment. I will wrap up soon.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have reached the end, it is an excellent article. One would like to read about the next stages of research on the matter, perhaps a paragraph on modern research pertaining to understanding the Egyptian language although I guess this is beyond the scope of this article. In any case, the feeling that one would like to read more testifies to the quality of the present article. Good Job!Iry-Hor (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is comforting to read. I worried I was going a bit too far beyond the scope in the last paragraph, but it really did strike me that 1866 and 1867 seem to have been the years when the basics were absolutely nailed down. Linguistic developments beyond that (the Berlin School and beyond) really would be a separate article, and much of it beyond my comprehension. Thank you for your comments. A. Parrot (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Andrew Dalby

[edit]

Forgive me, I don't have time right now to do a proper review, but I've watched the article develop and I consider it a great piece of work. It merits featured status. Andrew Dalby 18:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kaiser matias

[edit]

A fascinating topic that I've always found interesting. Reading through the article I see no issues, and it comes across quite clearly for something quite complex. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats
  • Ref 130 requires p. not pp. (that's the only issue)
  • Quality/reliability: no issues. Coverage is appropriately comprehensive and scholarly.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MONGO

[edit]

In an article this refined and of such overall excellence, its not easy to spot issues, but a few quibbles:

  • Standardize the time periods: In third paragraph in the section titled Egyptian scripts and their extinction, we have the dates written as "1st century BC", "1st century AD" then "third century AD" followed by "4th century AD". I did not readily see if this should be written in a numerical or written format but it should be one or the other, not both.
@MONGO: I think my natural inclination is to use words for single-digit centuries and millennia but numbers for double digits. If I remember correctly, somebody treated this pattern as an inconsistency on a previous article I worked on, so when writing this one I was trying but not succeeding to make myself use numbers all the time. There's also the problem of millennia, for which numbers feel especially weird to me. MOS:CENTURY itself uses "1st century" and "second millennium" in the same sentence. What do you recommend? A. Parrot (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MOS is not fully clear. Where did I see that numbers one (first) through ten (tenth) are written but above that are numerical. My thinking is it looks fine either way but just needs to be standardized. It's a minor detail really.--MONGO (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it all to words. A. Parrot (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same section but comparing first and third paragraphs we have "seventh century BC" and later "fourth century BC". to contrast with "4th century AD" in third paragraph. Lets standardize this if we can.
  • Dates written as 3200 BC need a non-breaking space {{nbsp;}} between number and "BC".
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--MONGO (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Masjawad99

[edit]

@A. Parrot and HaEr48: I have read through the article several times, and I don't find any major issues in it. The only suggestion I could give is to change the spellings of "favors", "fervor", and "traveled" to "favours", "fervour", and "travelled" if you want to stick with BrE. Otherwise, the article is in magnificent shape. Kudos to A. Parrot for such a well-written piece. If I have time, I might actually translate this to Indonesian and bring it to FA status in id.wiki as well. You might want to ping somebody to do an image review, though, since it still lacks one. Masjawad99💬 01:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

I am only reviewing proper images, not the WikiHiero glyphs as I don't have the expertise to judge these:

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'm pretty sure it's this one. I can't track down exactly where that one originated, but based on the edit summary from the file's creation it seems to have been something on Project Gutenberg. I've added a link to File:Rosetta_Stone_BW.jpeg in the description for File:RosettaStoneAsPartOfOriginalStele.svg; do I need to do anything else? A. Parrot (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added what I think should be the right license. A. Parrot (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Altered it a bit, you may want to add some information (author, publication date) for the book though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All images are in good sections, with respect to ALT text some of that needs to be rewritten - the scope of ALT text is to substitute for the image, not simply to describe it, and I am not sure that File:C+B-Egypt-Fig2-LetterDevelopment.PNG has the best ALT text possible there. In general, the images of older works need to be appropriately tagged as commons:Template:PD-Art and commons:Template:PD-scan. Also, not really relevant to anything but the fact that we are dutifully copyright tagging an over one millennium old image like File:Ibn Wahshiyya's 985 CE translation of the Ancient Egyptian hieroglyph alphabet.jpg amused me a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and added the PD-Art and PD-Scan tags. I've changed the alt text for the file you pointed out, but I've always had difficulty figuring out what to do with alt text, so I don't know what else needs fixing. As for the Ibn Wahshiyya image, I'm accustomed to copyright-tagging art that's several thousand years old, so it's nothing new to me. A. Parrot (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson

[edit]

This looks great, good job! I took the liberty of merging a short paragraph into the preceding paragraph, but other than that this looks good. I'm not the biggest fan of "Further Reading" sections in FAs, as I believe that an FA should generally be all the reading a non-specialist needs on a subject, but I believe that the subject at hand is sufficiently specialized, and the given readings too primary for actual incorporation into the article, that the Further Reading section here is actually an improvement. This certainly isn't fatal and a bit nitpicky, but for future work I'd recommend you use {{sfn}} rather than ref tags for {{harvnb}}. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2019 [2].

Paleocene

[edit]
Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 10 million year period after the dinosaurs went extinct. There're no other GA or FA geological periods so I'm trying to make a really good template for it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
I found 4   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was all. FunkMonk (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all people mentioned are presented with both nationality and occupation.
If you're referencing T. C. R. Pulvertaft, I originally put "Danish geologist" but this got reverted because the source didn't say he's Danish   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you could expand the etymology section a bit more with history of the term., For example, you don't mention that it is an epoch, when it was considered as such, how use of the term has evolved, and what the Tertiary is, or what period it is currently considered part of. Perhaps the etymology section could be expanded into a history of usage section or similar.
I think all that's really relevant here about the Tertiary and Paleogene is that they're periods which contains the Paleocene. Discussion over their nomenclature and dates and so forth can be discussed in their respective articles   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I said mainly concerned the history of the concept Paleocene, "when it was considered as such (an epoch), how use of the term has evolved". You cover the usage of the stages within it in more detail, so I don't see why you shouldn't for the overall subject itself. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How's it now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the context is good, maybe a bit long-winded. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want specific parts trimmed off?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, "first epoch of the Paleogene Period in the modern Cenozoic Era" is only mention in the intro, but should be covered and explained further in the article body, perhaps in the Boundaries section or a "usage/history" section.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if there is any logic as to when you use a fossil or a life restoration to represent an animal?
Depends which picture looks better   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "caused a cataclysmic event resulting in the extinction of 75% of all life" You could add "at this boundary" for clarity.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The sea cliffs of Itzurun beach near the town of Zumaia" This caption gives no context as to why the image is used here. Also, you could mention the country.
That would be a very long caption if it did, which is why it's located right next to the paragraph which gives it context   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least you should mention the formation it represents. Image captions are supposed to provide context for the images, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions: "3 establishes the picture's relevance to the article; 4 provides context for the picture;". Neither has been done here. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
added "the GSSP for the Selandian and Thanetian"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The K–Pg boundary rock image could also be given a location, which I think would actually be good for all the fossil and rock images used, for context. Age or formation as well.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In stratigraphy, a stage is a distinct rock stratum" You could likewise explain what an epoch and period are, when you put the Paleocene into context as discussed above.
  • "and is marked by the first appearance of Discoaster and a diversification of Heliolithus" State what kind of lifeforms these are, also elsewhere in the article when you mention taxa.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A chron is when a geomagnetic reversal–when the North and South poles switch polarities–occurs." This reads rather confusingly, how about "A chron is the occurence of a geomagnetic reversal–when the North and South poles switch polarities."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some paleomaps would help reader understanding under Paleogeography.
I tried looking but there aren't any PD Paleocene maps. I could put in a late Cretaceous and probably an Eocene map   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if any of these are of use:[4][5][6] FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt the first one is actually PD (and it's in Spanish), the second one is in some foreign language, so I used the third one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Restoration of Patagonia during the Danian" Specify it is a restoration of the flora.
I wouldn't say it's just of the flora, I mean there's a lake to the right and a mountain in the back   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Patagonian landscape then. "Restoration of Patagonia" could mean a lot of things. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in modern day" The modern day? Seems a bit half finished, unless you say for example "modern day America".
there's nothing wrong with "in modern day"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Today, deep water formation–where, in the thermohaline circulation, warm tropical water becomes colder and saltier at the poles and sinks (downwelling)–occurs in two places: the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean near the Antarctic Peninsula." This is an extremely long and convoluted sentence, perhaps places like this need parenthesis instead of subordinate clauses.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "climate across K-Pg boundary" Across the.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though the temperature in the latest Danian varies at about the same magnitude, this event coincides with an increase of carbon." Why present tense al of a sudden?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have been important factors of the Paleocene understory." Component instead of factor (which seems)?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MacGinitiea" I'm pretty sure such formatting is not allowed in taxonomic names, you need Macginitiea.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "probably to take advantage of the newly evolving birds and mammals for seed dispersal,[82] fill recently emptied niches, and an increase in rainfall" Something missing here, I guess "take advantage of" also applies to the increased rainfall, but not to "fill empty niches". One solution could be to reorder it as "to take advantage of the newly evolving birds and mammals for seed dispersal,[82] an increase in rainfall, and to fill recently emptied niches".
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recovered quickly from in the Eocene from immigrants from the Caribbean" The from from is clunky, how about "through immigration from the Caribbean"?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "woody angiosperms had become the dominant plant" Should be "plants" then, the former is plural.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the extinction event, every land animal" You have mentioned a few extinction events by this time, would be good to specify C/PG.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "remained small, nocturnal, and largely insectivorous throughout the Mesozoic to avoid competition with dinosaurs (nocturnal bottleneck)." Shouldn't the nocturnal bottleneck article be linked at first mention of nocturnal here instead?
I don't think most people would know nocturnal bottleneck is an actual thing and would think nocturnal just links to nocturnal   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "monotremes Obdurodon sudamericanum[95] and Monotrematum." Obdurodon sudamericanum links to Monotrematum, so that genus name should be used only, there is only one species.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Large carnivores include the wolf-like" Included, the rest is written in past tense.
That would mean Mesonychia are no longer considered large Paleocene carnivores (that's why we also have "Paleocene marsupials include...")
  • "mammalian crown orders" Link to crown group at first mention, now it is further down.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The largest order of Paleocene mammals" What is meant here, size or numbers?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would make sense to follow the reptiles section with the amphibians section, instead of breaking up the vertebrate sections with insects arbitrarily.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sea life" Why exclude rivers and lakes? Better to make the section inclusive, otherwise you don't have anywhere to cover freshwater animals. Even better, you should divide it into fishes, which it mainly covers, and aquatic invertebrates, as all the other sections are grouped by taxon, not by habitat.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of only having a section on insects, there should be one on arthropods (or land invertebrates) as a whole, I'm sure something can be said about various other types, looks rather arbitrarily grouped now.
So we have Insects and arachnids and Marine invertebrates   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crown group could maybe be defined in text, it's not a common term.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crown group bird known is Tsidiiyazhi abini" Why use full binomial, when you mainly use only genus names otherwise?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fossil record also records" Repetitive wording. Includes or similar would be better.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Mesozoic, birds and pterosaurs exhibited size-related niche partitioning–no known Late Cretaceous bird has a wingspan greater than 2 m (6 ft 7 in) nor exceeded a weight of 5 kg (11 lb), whereas contemporary pterosaurs ranged from 2–10 m (6 ft 7 in–32 ft 10 in), probably to avoid competition." Why mid sentence change of tense to present?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some bird species reached gigantic proportions" You should specify terrestrial or flightless, as all those mentioned are such.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may be zombie taxon" Taxa is plural.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Conversely, sharks and rays appear to have been unable to exploit the vacant niches, and recovered the same pre-extinction abundance." This is unclear due to the tense. Did they or did they not recover their former abundance?
They, in fact, recovered   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then the sentence is a bit hard to understand. You first say they were unable to exploit vacant niches, but that they recovered the same abundance as before. So what is meant by abundance, numbers? Because the former part of the sentence would seem to preclude diversity? FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It says, "sharks appear to have remained stuck at similar abundances in the Paleocene as they had in the Cretaceous, suggesting that they were unable to exploit newly opened niches after the extinction," also I really don't understand what the confusing part is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The word "recovered" suggests that there was a drop in abundance at some point, not that it remained steady. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a drop in abundance because of the K-T extinction event, which recovered in the Paleocene   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is the juxtaposition of the information that is confusing. Perhaps ""Conversely, sharks and rays appear to have been unable to exploit the vacant niches, yet/but recovered the same pre-extinction abundance" would make it less ambiguous. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the fact that they had recovered the same abundance level which indicates they didn't exploit vacant niches. If they had recovered greater abundance, this would indicate they did exploit vacant niches. If they had recovered less abundance, this would indicate they were outcompeted in the Paleocene   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as ground sharks were more suited to hunting the rapidly diversifying ray-finned fish whereas mackeral sharks target larger prey" Needless change in tense.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were able to expand their diets to seeds and able to form" Last able not needed.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only known Paleocene ant fossil is the aneuretine Napakimyrma paskapooensis from the 62–56 million year old Paskapoo Formation.[1" This should be stated in the beginning of the ant paragraph then, after "Though there is a gap in the ant fossil record from 78–55 mya". It wasn't clear from reading that the entire long paragrapgh was not even based on paleocene fossils until I reached the end. In fact, it seems a bit too detailed here if it mainly refers to what's known from the Eocene.
I thought I made it fairly clear it's based on Eocene and Cretaceous fossils by saying there's a gap in the fossil record through the Paleocene and by saying "great fossil diversity...in the Eocene and their rarity in the Cretaceous indicates an explosive diversification of modern ants in the Paleocene"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear enough to indicate only a single taxon is known (which clarifies the rest of the text), so it would help the reader understand if that part was moved earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cretaceous cusk eel Pastorius methenyi" Like earlier, full binomial instead of just genus, though the former is the norm here, perhaps there are others.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For a time, it is possible the mass extinction of these creatures–including the once abundant ammonites, Exogyra oysters, and even vertebrates such as mosasaurs–would have provided food for detritovores," Not sure what is meant here, that the carcasses of the extinct animals provided food? Needs clarification.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the name derives from the combining of the Ancient Greek palæo- meaning "old" and the Eocene Epoch" Or rather, it is a combination of those two words (doesn't come from it).
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though some animals attained enormous size" Enormous is a bit of an overstatement here. Relatively large or gigantic would be less hyperbolic, we're not exactly talking dinosaur size here, as would be implied.
changed to "great size"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss anything?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi

[edit]

McInenerney & wing 2011 says on page 507 in Summary Points that the PETM stands as the most dramatic geological confirmation of greenhouse theory etc. This is a salient statement about topic of high interest. Other summary points may be useful as well.  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like something for Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum or Greenhouse and icehouse Earth   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The first placentals and marsupials evolved in the Paleocene." and (from Cenozoic) "Modern placental mammals originated d uring this time" and even more interestingly "...though there was an explosive diversification, the affinities of most Paleocene mammals is unknown, and only primates, carnivorans, and rodents have unambiguous Paleocene origins, resulting in a 10 million year gap in the fossil record of other mammalian crown orders" Take all together, I think there should be something in the WP:LEAD about placental mammals, primates, carnivorans, and rodents.All four, not just the first... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seemed a little over specific for the lead, so I put "Though, mammals proliferated, most Paleocene taxa have ambiguous affinities"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your idea of what goes in a lead and mine seem to be radically different. I think the bit about placental mammals, primates etc. is a key point. After all, " primates are us". If you keep it so general that you exclude such a monumental development, the lead loses its value altogether. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Primates" didn't evolve until the absolute beginning of the Eocene. Any primate-like creature in the Paleocene is arbitrarily thrown into Plesiadapiforms (the ancestral group), so the roots of Primates was in fact in the Paleocene, but primate Primates didn't come in until the Eocene. I made it more clear in the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well OK then. And... What about placental mammals? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the affinities of most Paleocene mammals is unknown, and only primates, carnivorans, and rodents have unambiguous Paleocene origins," grammar. meanwhile, you just told me that ain't true for primates, didn't ye (as my mother would say, bless her heart) ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

primates are a crown order of mammals, and we know their origins (Plesiadapiforms), so their affinities are unambiguous   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar: "the affinities of most Paleocene mammals is unknown" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources: the links in refs 47 and 57 are not working (for me). Please test. Otherwise, links to sources are all working according to the checker tool
That's because both of them went to subscription-only pages, we should be good now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both OK now Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formats
  • Ref 1: incomplete – missing retrieval date
I can't fix that because the ref is included with Template:Paleogene   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)ĵ[reply]
  • Ref 3: unformatted url
I don't know where that came from but it was unnecessary so I removed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 46: retrieval date in inconsistent formatĵ
Looks like archive-bot came through and also added access dates for some reason   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 48: "PaleoMap Project" is the work rather than the website. The publisher appears to be the site's author, Christopher R. Scotese. What is his status for acceptance as a high quality reliable source?
Christopher Scotese is a paleogeographer who created the PaleoMap Project which produces some of the most detailed paleomaps   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously he's the creator of this website. But what are Scotese's broader credentials as a high quality reliable source? What else has he published? Is he an accepted authority, cited by other experts? Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's written about paleogeography, there's a list of his publications on his article page, and (I'm just reading his article) he's a research associate at FMNH, taught at U Texas, now teaches at Northwestern, and predicted Pangaea Ultima   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's good enough. Brianboulton (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 107 and 108: Both showing ancient retrieval dates (12+ years ago). Should be updated.
How do you mean?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an important issue, since I assume the source articles have not changed over the 12 years, but a more recent access date would be consistent with the rest of the sources presentation. Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They're journal articles so they shouldn't have access dates, so I just removed them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality/reliability: subject to issues raised above, the sources appear appropriately scholarly and meet the requirements of the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query from WereSpielChequers

[edit]
" a major climatic event wherein nearly carbon was released" I suggest a quantity of carbon should be specified here. ϢereSpielChequers 06:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I accidentally deleted it, done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ta. ϢereSpielChequers 23:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"and killed off 75% of life on Earth" I don't want to sound like I'm dissing a certain asteroid that was just minding its own business before a supposedly "mostly harmless" planet hit it; but surely that's 75% of species, and likely a much higher percentage of life. If 75% of species were completely wiped out and a small proportion had a few survivors, the proportion of life that died would be much higher. ϢereSpielChequers 23:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Since the mid-Maastrichtian, more and more carbon had been sequestered in the deep sea, leading to a trend in increasing deep sea temperatures." How does increasing carbon in the deep sea increase temperatures there? I understand how carbon in the atmosphere increases global temperatures via the greenhouse effect, and I could see that increased levels of carbon in the deep sea could be an indicator of increased carbon in the atmosphere. ϢereSpielChequers 10:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the source says "the rise in δ13C and deep water temperatures probably reflect carbon burial and CO2 sequestration". I think the source is trying to say δ13C increased concentration because total ocean volume decreased, which caused increased give-off of oceanic carbon to the atmosphere, which increased surface temperatures, which in turn increased ocean temperatures, and warmer water has a reduced capacity to store carbon, which eventually led to the Dan-C2 Event   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt total ocean volume is the issue, if anything that shrinks as oceans cool and as glaciation locks up water. Rising temperatures and ice free poles should increase ocean volume. Do you have another source available for this bit? ϢereSpielChequers 17:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was no ice at the poles from the beginning of the Mesozoic to the late Eocene (so increasing temperatures wouldn't add water to the oceans). The total volume of the oceans was shrinking due to tectonic movement causing the retreat of inland seas (such as the Western Interior Seaway), causing ocean carbon to become more concentrated. He cites someone else who doesn't go farther than "carbon feedback loop" (but he doesn't explain what that means)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Water expands slightly when heated, so even after all ice has melted, inut creasing temperatures will slightly increase the volume of the Oceans due to thermal expansion. Tectonic movement won't change the total volume of the ocean, but it can move things around - so if the Western interior seaway is being uplifted and drained, that water goes elsewhere. ϢereSpielChequers 10:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I think I'm understanding this now. The source (Quillévéré) says "The Dan-C2 event is preceded by a long-term rise inglobal δ13C of marine carbonates and deep water tem-peratures starting during the mid-Maastrichtian (e.g. Norris et al., 2001). As pointed out by Zachos et al.(1989) and Stott and Kennett (1990), the rise in δ13C and deep water temperatures probably reflect carbon burial and CO2 sequestration" and Stott doesn't say anything more than "carbon feedback loop", and Zachos's main point is that carbon deposition in the deep sea stopped (Strangelove ocean) at the K-T boundary, but there was a cooling trend right before which led to increased carbon deposition, and the source Zachos is citing says the Strangelove ocean increased atmospheric CO2 in the early Danian because the surface of the ocean couldn't absorb as much carbon, which increased surface temperatures, and (he doesn't explicitly say this next part) we know deep sea temperatures fluctuate with surface temperatures, and warmer water dissolves less carbon (the closest Quillévéré says to this is the PETM was caused by the "thermal liberation" of methane), leading to exhumation. This may be what Stott was getting at with "carbon feedback loop" because he also cites Zachos. So I changed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JJE

[edit]
Is it intentional that the vegetation section has three specialized subsections and no general one?
You know now that you mention it, Recovery is really more of a general vegetation, it's just in my head the Paleocene was a time the biosphere was recovering so I named it Recovery. What should I rename it to?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would probably separate out the info that is about the post-K-Pg-boundary recovery into a section called "recovery" and put the information about the steady-state vegetation into its own section - or directly under the header. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That See also section looks a little irrelevant to me.
the boulders are interesting but not to the point where it's necessary to discuss them, so I figured See also is a good place to put it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem I see is that including the boulders comes of a little arbitrary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What should go in a See also section?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All images are in good places.
Ref 133 is incorrectly formatted.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@A. C. Tatarinov and DiBgd:File:Barylambda-faberi.jpg: A little unsure about the way the image came here - was it sent by email?
DiBgd uploaded it to Commons himself, Tatarinov modified it. See upload history, the email is just there for contact purposes I guess. FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No ALT text anywhere that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Casliber

[edit]

Wow looks much better than at GAN.....comments soon....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

did some copyediting   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • [The Paleocene continued many geological processes initiated in Mesozoic], and the continents continued moving towards their present positions. - the bracketed bit coms ovr as odd and vague and is an odd construction.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll revisit once Jens finished below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: any comments?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All good now. nice job! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jens Lallensack

[edit]

Impressive article I have to say. As normal with such central articles, it seems to need a good deal of fine tuning to reach FA though. Comments from my first read follow.

  • The "Paleotectonics" section is a bit sparse; the constellation of the continents could be explained in much more detail. For example, the fact that Antarctica was still connected to South America and Australia isn't mentioned at all in this section.
What specifically do you wanna see?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast, the "Paleoceanography" section feels overly detailed and could be shortened for stringency.
Which parts do you want cut off? I trimmed down the part about Arctic currents   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If no one else complains, it's probably fine. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Paleocene continued many geological processes initiated in Mesozoic, and the continents continued moving towards their present positions. – This doesn't provide any facts, you could say something similar about all other time periods. Maybe give more specific information here.
I just removed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • French paleobotanist and geologist Wilhelm Philipp Schimper – he was German as well as French. Maybe just remove the "French"?
used French/German   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In stratigraphy, a stage is a distinct rock stratum ratified by the ICS based on a Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point(GSSP) from a single formation (a stratotype) identifying the lower boundary. – No, a stage is not a rock stratum. It is a time unit (chronostratigraphic unit).
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the GSSP was defined as the well-preserved El Haria Formation – No, the GSSP is not the formation, it is a specific level within the formation (the K/Pg boundary). Furthermore, the formation cannot be regarded as "well-preserved", you probably mean the section exposing the K/Pg boundary which is well-preserved at the El Kef locality.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It begins about 29 m (95 ft) above the base of the Selandian – in the Thanet Sands, you mean? Why is this of relevance here? The stage is now defined based on GSSP points.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • late Cretaceous – this is a formally defined epoch, and therefore has to be capitalised ("Late Cretaceous").
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • though rifting of already thin crust may have also contributed. – does not explain the cause, and I'm not sure what is meant. The initiation of rifting at the mid-oceanic ridge?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • though a Panama arc – not sure about this, to my knowledge there is only one arc with this name. Needs to be reformulated I think.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • evaporation – link it
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • deep sea and surface water temperatures varied synchronously–as one dipped, so did the other–and, as such, there were probably not very defined thermoclines–layers of water of different temperatures which allow for a large difference in deep water and surface temperatures – this feels of topic here, and might be better placed in Oceanography (it feels a bit repetitive since this was basically already explained in the latter section)?
I was debating where to put that too but it needs to be attached to deep ocean temperatures, and deep ocean temperatures belongs in the Climate section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • what about atmospheric CO2 levels?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • more and more carbon had been sequestered in the deep sea likely due to the retreat of inland seas, leading to a trend in increasing deep sea temperatures – Not obvious why this would lead to increasing deep sea temperatures.
  • resulted in a 1.6–2.8 °C change – increase or decrease?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • mass release of methane hydrate – coming from where?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would mention the long-term trends. Was there an increase or decrease of temperature and carbon during the Paleocene?
  • methane clathrate – link/explain?
it's linked on first mention in Paleotectonics   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • but most likely about 2,500 years – verb missing?
Nope   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • bottom water oxygen minimum zones (OMZs) – maybe explain for better comprehensibility/accessibility.
changed to "oxygen minimum zones (OMZs) in the deep sea"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Cerrejón Formation – link and state where it is located already at first mention, not only at the second.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The extinction of dinosaurs and megaherbivores – this implies that dinosaurs where not megaherbivores; what other megaherbivores died out?
changed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the early Paleocene, there was an increase in herb diversity – sure, but most groups should have shown increased diversity after the mass extinction? So this doesn't tell us anything new.
condensed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is now Castle Rock – where is it located?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • middle-Paleocene – why the "-"?
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "recovery section", I wonder if it makes more sense to have the last paragraph as the first.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and remained small, nocturnal, and largely insectivorous – that view is outdated (see, e.g., [7])
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though mammals could sporadically venture out in daytime (cathemerality) roughly 10 million years before the extinction event, they only became strictly diurnal (active in the daytime) sometime after. – That can't be said for the whole group; species will always differ. These are only trends.
added "some"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the largest known Mesozoic mammal, Repenomamus robustus, which reached about 1 m (3 ft 3 in) in length and 12–14 kg (26–31 lb) in weight–comparable to the modern day Virginia opossum–may have operated on the same trophic level as some small dinosaurs. – I would greatly shorten here, as it seems a bit off-topic. Also, the trophic level depends on if you are a herbivore or carnivore; both dinosaurs and Mesozoic mammals were both depending on the species, so this does not make so much sense in my opinion.
shortened   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and dental complexity correlates to a broader range in diet – I doubt that this is the case, I expect the opposite. What the paper you are citing says is "disparity of dental complexity", which is quite a different thing. "Disparity" means morphological variability; it means that if there are species with simple dentition and species with complex dentition in a group, the range in diet will be greater.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably due to competition – competitive replacement has been proposed for a number of groups (including dinosaurs) but according to recent studies (e.g., Benton, 2014) seems to be quite rare. Would at least change to "possibly".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though mammals had probably already begun to diversify – you mean "therian mammals"?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their extinction allowed flying birds to attain greater size, such as pelagornithids and pelecaniformes. However, the Paleocene pelagornithid Protodontopteryx was quite small compared to later members, with a wingspan of about 1 m (3.3 ft), comparable to a gull. – Last sentence contradicts your first statement, it is unclear what the point is. Why not give an example of one of greater size (as indicated by the first sentence), or isn't there any?
A lot of the large ones are known from the absolute beginning of the Eocene, which means that they evolved in the Paleocene, but the Paleocene bird fossil record isn't very expansive. The source says "Strikingly, within 10 million years of the extinction of the pterosaurs, marine birds diversified. Tropicbirds and the first large marine soaring birds, the Pelagornithidae, appeared in marine ecosystems"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, the late Paleocene snake Titanoboa grew to over 13 m (43 ft) long, the longest snake ever recorded.[120] – This sentence seems a bit attached to its paragraph, without connection (though the "Further" seems to imply one).
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are giving a lot of size estimates, focusing on the largest of the clades. It makes sense when the significance of body size is also discussed (e.g., for the recovery after the mass extinction), and this is what you often do, so I would say that is ok. But I wonder what the relevance of the size estimates is for the crocodilians you give.
just to remain consistent   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of just giving size estimates, first appearances could be more in the focus. Some modern day families have their origins in the Paleocene, such as the true toads.[129] – The other families could be mentioned as well, this is important imo.
  • representing nearly half of all vertebrate life – in terms of diversity, biomass, or something else?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the order of groups should be inverted (Invertebrates first, and mammals last). This is the standard elsewhere, and can also help the reader with following the article, as you are going up the food chain, not down.
I figured mammals should go first because that's the most famous group in the Paleocene, and then birds being the 2nd most famous group, and then my brain just ordered them into when the group evolved in reverse order. I feel like mammals and birds should stay the first 2 sections given they are the most talked about, but to the rest I have no feelings about   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the same pre-extinction abundance – why "the same", and not simply "to their pre-extinction abundance"?
just to make sure you don't think "pre-extinction abundance, and then some"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the corrections so far (you could, in general, save some reviewer time by considering comments a bit more carefully; e.g., zombie taxa is indeed not correctly linked). The article has shaped up nicely. I wonder, however, if the article is complete already. It certainly has balance issues still (as mentioned, loads on oceanography but geologic events are, if at all, only briefly mentioned). Thinking about it, I would argue that sedimentology is missing completely. What are the major sedimentary basins at the time? I would also mention the most important fossil lagerstätten (also do not forget about amber). Any meteor craters that formed during that time? Another thing that is missing completely are resources such as oil and coal that formed during the time. Yes, sounds boring at first, but also tells a lot about the environment at the time (coal swamps etc.). I see quite some possibilities for expansion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Important formations are kind of interspersed throughout the article (like Castle Rock) but I guess there're more I should add, so I'll get to that, but I did overlook meteor craters and minerals, so I'll be working on a new section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How's the Sedimentology section looking? Is there anything else you want to see? Bear in mind important formations are strewn about the article so discussion on their importance is organized into relevant sections   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking great, don't see issues. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe put the "Stratigraphy" section into chronological order? I mean, discussing the history of the Selandian and Thanetian before discussing the Itzurun section? The whole section jumps quite a bit (e.g., back to Itzurun in the last paragraph; the reader might have already forgotten what Itzurun is at this point).
It is in order, it's just kinda weird because the modern GSSP for the Selandian and Thanetian are both Itzurun, so it goes: Paleocene → history of Danian/Danian → Selandian/Thanetian → history of Selandian → history of Thanetian. It should say what the GSSP for the Selandian and Thanetian is today before going off about their histories to avoid confusion and provide context without too much repetition, and further discussion about Itzurun needs to be paired with the former. It was more straightforward with the Danian because all the relevant information could fit neatly into a single paragraph, so we can immediately move from "this is how it was, and this is why it's something else now". I was debating how to do this exactly, and I figured this was the best way to avoid "this it how it was; for details how it is now, see below"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • ICS chart 2017. You could update to the 2019 version at [8]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The K-Pg extinction event, brought on by an asteroid impact". This is a bit too definite. There is still a significant minority who argue that the onset of Deccan volcanism pre-dates the impact. See for example [9].
I forgot to put in the Deccan Traps   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Paleocene, the continents continued moving towards their present positions." This reads as if you are in the middle of an exposition which has already explained the continents' positions in the Cretaceous and their movements. It needs re-writing. I suggest starting with the position of the continents 66 million years ago as at [10] North America, Eurasia and Africa connected, as were South America, Antarctica and Australia. India was moving towards Asia. I doubt whether you need to mention the Rockies and certainly not joining of the Americas which only occurred 3 million years ago.
When the Americas joined is not common knowledge, and the uplift of a major mountain range is definitely important   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The extinction event caused a floral and faunal turnover of species, with previously abundant species being replaced by previously uncommon ones. With a global average temperature of about 24–25 °C (75–77 °F), compared to 14 °C (57 °F) in more recent times, the Earth had a greenhouse climate without permanent ice sheets at the poles." This is confusing as the first sentence is about the immediate effects of the extinction, and the second sentence reads as if it is still about the effects but is presumably about the long term climate of the Paleocene. The comparison with temperatures today is misleading as it implies that the period was unusually hot, whereas we are living in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, which started about 34 million years ago. Having no ice at the poles and much higher sea levels is the normal state of the earth, although it would be catastrophic for us. I do not know whether the Paleocene was hotter than average, but you would need to compare with the long term average over the history of the earth.
The earth shifts from greenhouse climate to icehouse climate. The Cambrian to mid-Carboniferous was a greenhouse, the late-Carboniferous to the Permian was an icehouse, the Triassic to Early Eocene was a greenhouse, and then from then to present is an icehouse (that's why it says "Earth had a greenhouse climate")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The earth shifts in climate, but less than 100 million out of 540 million years of the Phanerozoic eon was icehouse. Most readers will think that saying that the Paleocene had a greenhouse climate means that it was unusully hot, and I think that it is important to explain that this is not correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
added "like in the preceding Mesozoic"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is OK although I would prefer "like most of the Phanerozoic". Dudley Miles (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As such, there were forests worldwide–including at the poles–with low species richness in regards to plant life." Was the low richness due to the forests or the extinction - or both?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments (and one additional remark above)
  • Perhaps worth mentioning that the PETM was short lived.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"a mass extinction of 30–50% of benthic foraminifera–planktonic species which are used as bioindicators of the health of a marine ecosystem–the largest in the last 90 million years". This implies that the PETM and Cenomanian-Turonian boundary event foraminiferal extinctions were both greater than at the K-Pg. I think you need better authority for this than a (presumably) non-peer reviewed book chapter. See for example [11].

"one of the largest in the Cenozoic"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Itzurun beach by the Basque town of Zumaia, 43.3006°N 2.2594°W, was used to define the Selandian and Thanetian". I found this confusing as you have previously discussed boundaries but this is on the whole stages. Perhaps "define the sequence of rocks in the Selandian and Thanetian".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Danian deposits are sequestered into the Aitzgorri Limestone Formation, and the Selandian and early Thanetian into the Itzurun Formation." I think "sequestered" is wrong as it means "separated from". I would say "divided" even though it is repeated in the next sentence.
Well it is sequestered there because somebody decided to group all these rocks into something called the Aitzgorri Limestone Formation   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "why the GSSP was moved. Today, the beginning of the Selandian is marked by the appearances of the planktonic Fasciculithus tympaniformis, Neochiastozygus perfectus, and Chiasmolithus edentulus". You do not say that the Selandian GSSP was moved to Zumaia.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the former components of Laurasia". You need to spell out what Laurasia was composed of. The wiki article is unclear, but according to Britannica at [12] North America, Europe and Asia apart from India.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beringia (65.5 and 58 mya)" Presumably between 65.5 and 58 mya?
no   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the Turgai route connecting Europe with Asia (which were separated by the Turgai Strait at this time)" I am not sure what this means. They were connected but separated?
changed to "which were otherwise separated"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resulting in the mass release of carbon". Surely of methane. Carbon on its own is a solid.
It says things like "2000 Gt of carbon release" so I'm pretty they're just saying methane-derived carbon which can form various other greenhouse gases   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which occurs at the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean near the Antarctic Peninsula" I think "in the North Atlantic near the North Pole" would be clearer.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is largely unknown how global currents could have affected global temperature. The formation of the Northern Component Waters by Greenland in the Eocene" I found this confusing. Is this whole paragraph on the Eocene and if so why?
so you can understand the implications of not having AMOC   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Antarctic Circumpolar Current–which traps cold water around the continent and prevents warm equatorial water from entering–had not yet formed, preventing Antarctica from freezing and impacting global climate". Dr Caroline Lear in this lecture said that the theory that the Antarctic Circumpolar Current caused the freezing of the Antarctic is no longer accepted. A source may be [13] but as this is off the topic of the article you might just be less definite on the cause.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To maintain a greenhouse climate, some positive feedbacks must have been active in order to compensate for the ineffectiveness of CO2" This does not sound right to me. Presumably it is not that CO2 is ineffective, just that the temperature was higher than CO2 on its own would cause.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:52, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " For the following half million years, the carbon isotope gradient–a difference in the C13/C12 ratio between surface and deep ocean water, causing carbon to cycle into the deep sea–may have shut down, termed a "Strangelove ocean", indicating low productivity". This sentence has so many sub-clauses that it loses its way and is difficult to follow. Also the carbon isotope gradient is a sympton not a cause of the changes in the process of carbon cycling.
So how would you write it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The diversification of mammals had a profound effect on parasitic insects, namely the evolution of bats, which have more ectoparasites than any other known mammal or bird." This seems an exaggeration. All mammal evolution must have affected the evolution of parasitic insects.
Yes, but to a smaller extent   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 83 has a doi error message.
don't know what to do about that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a very good article. There is an excessive concentration on North America. The almost complete absence of information on Asia and Africa is obviously due to lack of English language sources, but the very limited information on Europe seems surprising. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the research is done in America. I vaguely remember some of the sources talking about a surprising lack of research about Paleocene Europe either in reference to plants or fish or something   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2019 [14].

59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division

[edit]
Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division, which was raised during the Second World War. This was a second-line formation that spent the first few years of the war at home in the UK. It was assigned to the 21st Army Group, and was the last British infantry division to arrive in Normandy. It took part in Operation Charnwood, followed up by a support role for Operation Goodwood, and then in subsequent fighting as the Second Army pushed south in the final stages of the Normandy battle. As a result of overall heavy losses among Second Army, and a lack of trained reserves, the division was broken up towards the end of the battle and the men largely dispersed among the other formations across the 21st Army Group in an effort to bring them up to strength. The article has been edited by the GOCE, and passed its GA and A-Class reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM

[edit]

I went through this pretty comprehensively at Milhist ACR, so I mostly have only minor grammatical points to add:

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources checked and working
  • Formats:
  • Ref 126 cites a quote. A page ref is required.
  • Sources: Hart - Maybe wikilink "Mechanicsburg", or at least add a PA to indicate state (it's not a particularly well-known location). Same might be said for some of the other locations, e.g. in minor British towns.
  • Couple of general points, for thought if not necessarily action:
  • Footnote (a) ends: "For further information on how division sizes changed during the war, see British Army during the Second World War." This might be better in a "see also" section, otherwise it looks as though you're using another Wikipedia article as a reference.
I see what you are getting at, I have actioned your suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the section heading "External sources". If you're not citing them in your article, they aren't sources. "External links"?
Updated the title header accordinglyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality/reliability: No issues that I can see – sources meet the required FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, I had a look at this article when it was at ACR. Overall, it looks pretty good to me. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, I have actioned your comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've added my support now. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

This has been on the Urgents list for a while and hasn't received any attention in the last few weeks. It will be archived soon if it doesn't receive additional attention. --Laser brain (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Placeholder. I will review this as soon as I can. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5. Do you want to go first on this one, and I'll have a look once your comments have been addressed? (Which should leave me very little to do :-). ) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate. Here you go guys:

I have made some copy edits which you will want to check.

  • "It remained within the United Kingdom until 1944, assigned to anti-invasion and guard duties, and trained for combat overseas." Optional: '... while training for combat overseas.'
    Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the most junior formation" Does that mean 'the most recently established formation'? If so, it may be better to say so.*"serving abroad" Being pedantic, perhaps 'serving in France'?
    It was the most recently formed British division that was serving within the 21st Army Group (the 51st Div had technically been reformed using the 9th Div, but the varying sources all point to the 59th as the "junior formation". The other 2nd Line division in the 21st Army Group, the 15th, had been formed about a month before the 59th. I believe only the divisions fighting in Italy were more recently formed, the 2nd line 46th division and the newly raised 78th; which was regular army). I have made a tweak to the sentence, does this work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Much clearer.
Ah. It didn't occur to me that the link might be wrong.
Yes.

"clear the heavily defended German positions" Optional: would that be better as 'clear the strongly defended German positions'?

Footnotes

That's all I have. A cracking article, well up to FA standard. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and comment. I have attempted to act on all your recommendations.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:46, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My minor niggles all addressed. No hesitation in supporting. You are doing fine work with these British divisional articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

I'll do this one as fast as I can. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove the citation in the infobox - I do not believe it is necessary.
    RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see 7 howevers can we reduce them?
    Made some tweaks, hope this works.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Kent.
    LinkedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • several Canadian officers as part of the CANLOAN scheme Do we know the full name of CANLOAN?
    To the best of my knowledge, it is not an abbreviation. It is a codeword. It seems all source on the subject do not elaborate on the word, but explain the program as it is in the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • he first divisional casualties were also suffered, due to German shelling No casualties?
    Numbers do not appear to be reported for the pre-fighting shelling.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charnwood began at 04:20 hours Remove hours.
    RemovedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 177th Brigade's move to capture La Bijude You mean La Bégude-de-Mazenc?
    Negative. The village, if it can be called that, does not have a wiki article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation Pomegranate Link?
    There is no separate article for this operation. The link in the lede is piped to the Second Battle of the Odon, which is already linked in the main body.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • David French stated at least seven men of the 2/6SSR were found guilty of mutiny for refusing to follow orders Because why?
    Full text and context: "Whether men who broke down on the battlefield were punished or treated as psychological casualties largely depended upon the judgement and knowledge of their regimental superiors. Men who broke down but who were well-known to their officers were more likely to be treated as medical casualties, especially if the latter believed they had done their best and had reached the limit of their endurance. Conversely, men who refused to obey the orders of officers whom they hardly knew were more likely to be punished. This was illustrated by the case of a corporal and six private soldiers in 2/6th Staffordshire Regiment in 59th Division, who were found guilty of mutiny when they refused to obey an order to advance issued their company commander. The latter had only joined the battalion on 13 July, barely two weeks before the offence was committed on 2 August, and three of the accused were even more recent reinforcements."
    Personally, I don't believe there is enough context to explain why they refused orders. If you have a suggestion, by all means.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • wrote "For the inexperienced troops of the 59th Division for whom Charnwood was their baptism of fire, the grim and appalling realities of combat were a chastening experience." --> "wrote: "For the inexperienced troops of the 59th Division for whom Charnwood was their baptism of fire, the grim and appalling realities of combat were a chastening experience.""
(talk page stalker) Being a little pedantic, the source states "of 59th Division", no the. (My copy does anyway.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite correct about the additional word not meaning to be there. I have removed it. I have also dropped the capital, something others have argued meets MOS guidelines. Other than those tweaks, unsure what else was being suggested here.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it I think. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always for the review and comments. I have attempted to address them all, and have left a few comments above where I have not taken action.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the template per your comment. If there are any other items that you believe need to be addressed, let me know. Just a heads up, I will not be able to action them until next week.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 November 2019 [15].

Soviet destroyer Nezamozhnik

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Sturmvogel 66 and I bring an article on a Soviet destroyer built by the Russian Empire during World War I. One of many given ideological names, she saw extensive combat during World War II and was sunk as a target afterwards. The articles has previously passed a GA review and Milhist ACR earlier this year. Kges1901 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I looked at this article during its Milhist ACR, but have some additional points:

  • drop the bolding from the second mention of Nezamozhnik in the lead
  • Done
  • in the lead, suggest "She received the Order of the Red Banner for her actions during the war. Nezamozhnik was converted into a target ship at the end of the 1940s and sunk during the early 1950s."
  • Done
  • suggest "In early 1914, several months before the beginning of World War I, the Naval Ministry proposed the construction of a third series of eight destroyers, based on Novik, for the Black Sea Fleet. These ships were to be built in response to a perceived strengthening of the Ottoman Navy."
  • Done
  • suggest lk=on for the first displacement conversion
  • Done
  • suggest using standard rather than normal in the infobox for consistency
  • suggest lk=on for the power conversion in the infobox
  • use one spelling of Thornycroft
  • were the main battery behind gunshields?
  • (AA) after anti-aircraft
  • "the one distinguishing feature" does this mean her sisters had more than one, or none? The Design and description section refers to the armament of the class, so if there was a difference with this ship, it should be stated there that this was the ship's AA armament rather than the class armament
  • is a ship fitted with depth charges, or modified to carry depth charges?
  • still nothing available for 1936 to 1941?
  • Regrettably, this period isn't covered in the sources.
  • comma after "Kamysh-Burun, Kerch"
  • Done
  • link light cruiser Kalinin and thereafter distinguish between the transport and light cruiser
  • Corrected own error, still also the transport
  • "delivering 1,150 reinforcements to the latter" isn't clear, which port are we talking about?
  • Rephrased
  • Bassisty/Basisty
  • Standardized
  • there are a lot of Further reading sources. Do none of these provide something unique?

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SN54129

[edit]
Firstly, this is a nice looking article, more power to Sturmv and Kges for bringing it here. Kges, you actually drew my attention to it in your nom, where you call the ship's name "ideological"; yet that isn't mentioned in the text. Could you expand on that a little? How, why and who suggests themselves. Also, I am very much of a mind with Peacemaker; although the article is in no way insubstantial, it seems odd to have as many items in further reading as used in the text, particularly when FR is intended for more detailed treatments of the topic than WP:DUE can bear, yet some of the 'further reading' texts appear to be general works?
Perhaps expand the lead slightly: the two existing paras are rather short, which puts the lead at the bottom of the 2 or 3 paragraphs for an article of this (21326 chars) size. Still, no ball breaking complaints so far! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 15:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3433

  • As regards ideological naming, this was common to Soviet destroyers renamed in the 1920s, which were generally named for Communist heroes. The background of her name is covered in the body, where it is noted that a fundraising drive by the Committees of Poor Peasants helped provide funds for her completion. Kges1901 (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to stretch the lead because the ship did a lot of repetitious actions over long periods of time. I've severely cut down the further reading list.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Nice work lads. ——SN54129 15:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review (of sorts)

[edit]

Since nearly all the sources are in Russian, and the two English ones don't have online links, there's not much here to review apart from basic formatting, which looks OK, though I think that "Oxford" is always taken as in the UK unless otherwise stated. I'll take your word that the Russian material is scholarly. I did see the point raised in the A-class review, about the Further reading list, which I see includes six English language books – was there no use that could be made of any of these in the article itself? Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to PM's comment about the same thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

[edit]

Support from Wehwalt

[edit]

"but the destroyer ended up returning to Novorossiysk with the survivors of the tanker, which exploded after being struck by an aerial torpedo from a German bomber." I might throw a "had" before "exploded" and change the "of the tanker" to "from the tanker".

Aside from that looks good.

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • "File:German Conquest of the Crimea.png" needs to be sourced to a RS. Currently it tracks back to an editor's "own work", which isn't.
  • The Source for "File:Ww2 map23 july42 Nov 42.jpg" is broken.
  • Fixed link.
That leaves an RS needed for the first map. Do you have one to hand, or would you like me to do it? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Nezamozhnik (Russian/Ukrainian: Незамо́жник, lit. 'poor peasant') Unlink Russian here.
  • Link Black Sea in both lead and body.
    • First use only.
  • concluded that Zante's hull was 70% complete and her machinery 85% complete --> "concluded that Zante's hull was 70 percent complete and her machinery 85 percent complete"
    • The symbol is perfectly acceptable
  • Sevastopol on 18 September, they visited Istanbul, Turkey Unlink Turkey.
    • I think that one needs to be kept
  • @Sturmvogel 66: In my view it's odd to see that Turkey isn't a common term but the nationality/ethnicity Turkish is by MOS:OVERLINK too common to link?
  • Link Mediterranean.
    • This one's far more well known, IMO, than Turkey.
  • Among these was Zante, the Italian name for Zakynthos Pipe Italian to the Kingdom of Italy.
    • The Kingdom of Italy didn't exist at that time.
  • Messina, Italy (7 to 10 October), and Piraeus, Greece (11 to 14 October) Unlink Greece because specific government shouldn't have a link.
    • It doesn't; it links to the country
  • Firing 468 102 mm shells against shore targets Is it possible to avoid two numbers next to each other?
    • See the commentary on that issue above.
  • The destroyer departed for Tendra at 6:00 on the next morning --> " The destroyer departed for Tendra at 06:00 on the next morning"
    • Good catch.
  • which totalled 99 102 mm and 35 76 mm shells in addition Same as above and British totalled.
  • towed Zheleznyakov from the mouth of the Khobi river to Batumi --> "towed Zheleznyakov from the mouth of the Khobi River to Batumi"
  • with Nezamozhnik expending one hundred seventy-three 102 mm shells We do not use numbers with more than two words in it and try to avoid two numbers next to each other.
    • See above.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 November 2019 [16].

Yugoslav submarine Hrabri

[edit]
Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first Yugoslav submarine, made from parts left over from a British L-class sub that was never completed during World War I. Peculiarly, she had two deck guns rather than the usual one. Due to lack of funding for the Yugoslav naval arm, she had a quiet interwar period, being involved in a couple of "showing the flag" cruises only. When the Axis invaded Yugoslavia in April 1941, she was captured by the Italians. Given her poor condition, she was scrapped soon after. She is part of two Good Topics, one of which will become Featured if this nom is successful. It is fairly brief, but I believe it is comprehensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]

This is a very short article with prose length of 795 words, of which about 150 are in the lead section; so the unique text length is about 650 words: a short essay. Comprehensiveness is not the synonym for "covering everything presented in the sources". If the sources don't provide enough information, then the article is not comprehensive and should not be listed as FA. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is contrary to the definition of comprehensiveness, of "including or dealing with all or nearly all elements or aspects of something". A subject can only be covered comprehensively to the extent that information about it is known. Its sister sub, Yugoslav submarine Nebojša is only slightly longer and passed FA four years ago without any issues on that score. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A stub/start class article can contain all that is available in the sources, but that won't make it comprehensive. Also what happened with the other article is irrelevant here.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, it demonstrates a consensus that short articles can be comprehensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • I don't wanna get involved in this issue but, what I can say is, that the Lyon-class battleship (made by Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy) has only 13k (almost 14k) bytes which is also really short but it menaced the FAC on 13 October 2019. The text over there isn't that slightly longer than this one and it shouldn't surprise me that there wouldn't be more articles who are that short as this one in the near future. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • Yes, there is one "metre" who's written in the full word in the sentence while others are only written in the symbol of metre. Try to standardise them in this sentence. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it is but Britons use English units so in this sentence the English unit should be the primary. Because it is British we should add"British" in it to make it clear to other editors and the readers that we're talking about British torpedo tubes who use English units. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. But it is a really short article, but there is no min. length required for an FA. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Part two[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5. Just a query about one point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

I've looked at formats, verification and quality/reliability. No concerns were raised at the A-class review in 2015, and I can't find any now. Brianboulton (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

The sole image is appropriately licenced, captioned and alt-texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]

I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check. "All good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A nice little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Comprehensive"?
[edit]

For what it is worth, I consider that the article meets the criterion "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context".

In particular I am opposed to the idea that this criterion requires a minimum length or number of words. I could, for example, readily rewrite this article to be over, say, 1,000 words. This would make it a worse article, not a better one, and surely this kind of perverse incentive should be avoided. The criterion seems both appropriate and clear and I feel that it should be interpreted as it is written. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this article has all that is in the sources. Should be quite comprehensive on your standards, and worthy of FA. No? Based on your criteria, half of Wikipedia articles would qualify to be comprehensive. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are not my criteria; they are the FAC criteria. I have expressed no opinion as whether I think the article, or any other, is "worthy". I have said that the FAC criteria seem clear and that this article meets 1b. If you disagree, suggest a fact or detail which you believe it neglects, or explain why you don't believe that it places the subject in context. Alternatively, open a RfC to have 1b changed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth giving Wikipedia:Very short featured articles a read. Parsecboy (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments support by Pendright

[edit]

True, the article is short. So far, though, the arguments made on its behalf seem more compelling than any put forward in opposition. My comments follow. Pendright (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede:

  • Hrabri (Brave) was the lead boat of the Hrabri-class submarines built by the Vickers-Armstrong Naval Yard on the River Tyne in the United Kingdom, for the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia).
Consider this: Hrabri (Brave) was the lead boat of the Hrabri-class submarines; built by the Vickers-Armstrong Naval Yard, on the River Tyne, in the United Kingdom for the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia).
  • In this case, a semicolon is uaed to join the independent clauses because there is no conjunction.
  • On the River Tyne is set off by commas because it's not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
  • The comma before the word for was removed so it did not interrupt the flow of the sentence.
  • Launched in 1927, her design was based on that of the British L-class submarine of World War I, and she was built using parts originally assembled for a submarine of that class which was never completed.
  • Remove "that of" - unneeded words.
  • ...assembled for a submarine of that class which was never completed.
Consider this: assembled for a sumarine of the class that was never completed.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prior to World War II she participated
Place a comma after World War II - introductory phrase.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was given the number N3 but was not commissioned and was scrapped later in 1941 due to her poor condition.
  • Place a comma after commissioned to join the clauses.
  • In this case, would recommissioned be the better word here?

Description:

  • It was generally accepted that the Adriatic coastline was effectively a sea frontier that the naval arm was responsible for securing it with the limited resources made available.
  • It was generally accepted by whom?
  • Place a comma after frontier to join the clauses.
  • "which" now would seem to work better then that after frontier.
  • The word limited is unneaded - available means "able to be used or obtained.
  • Hrabri (Brave) was built for the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) by the Vickers-Armstrong Naval Yard on the River Tyne in the United Kingdom.
"on the River Tyne" - same as above.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her design was based on that of the ...
"that of" seems unneeded.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Service:

  • Hrabri was launched in 1927 as the first submarine ...
Add a comma after 1927
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1934, Hrabri again visited Valletta and also the KelibiaRoads off the coast of Tunisia, and in August 1935, Hrabri again visited Malta, this time in company with the more modern French-designed submarine Osvetnik.
Consider this: In 1934, Hrabri again visited Valletta and the KelibiaRoads off the coast of Tunisia. [New sentence] In August 1935, Hrabri revisited Malta; this time in company with the more modern French-designed submarine Osvetnik.
  • In August and September 1937, Hrabri, along with the other French-made submarine Smeli and the depot ship Zmaj, visited Greece, including the port of Piraeus, and the islands of Crete and Corfu.
Is depot ship worthy of a link?
Yes, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was given the number N3 by the Italians but was not commissioned, and was scrapped later that year due to her poor condition
...recommissioned?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Have you forgotten these? Pendright (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Pendright, it fell off my radar. I'll get right onto it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Pendright. All done I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All cmments addressed - supporting! Pendright (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this nomination now has three supports, image and source reviews. I think the oppose has been addressed by other reviewers. Can I have dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 November 2019 [17].

Battle of Cape Ecnomus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After fourteen FAC nominations in a row featuring English military encounters between 1333 and 1355, I offer up one from the First Punic War. 2,275 years ago was fought the largest naval battle in history, by number of combatants involved. It didn't much effect the war, or even decide the campaign it was a part of. Below is my attempt to recount it. It went through GAN in February and ACR in June. Since it has had a map lovingly crafted by Amitchell125 which is, IMHO, superb. See what you think of it and of the rest of the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
  • Nice, this will be one of those articles I'll review mainly to get to know more about the subject. Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder why so many of the images have been resized so small instead of default sizes? I guess it's to prevent interference with titles below short sections?
I was told at the ACR that the images were causing sandwiching. I couldn't replicate on any of four devices, so I kept reducing them until they were happy.
Hmmm, as far as I understand it, it is to prevent sandwiching between images, but I don't see how it would be the case here. No big deal anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The image reviewer asked me to enlarge them again, so I have. I prefer this size and hope that you will too.
  • Licata is a duplink of Phintias, do we need both? You already explain the latter is the former name.
IMO it is helpful to a reader to have both, but I won't let that stand in the a=way of your approval if you consider it unnecessary.
Not a big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FunkMonk: thanks for taking a look at this. I hope that it is informative. I certainly found this dally in the Punic Wars entertaining. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other, later, histories of the war exist, but in fragmentary or summary form" And are they congruous with Histories?
No source I can find offers a direct comparison in that way. They tend to describe the sources and leave it to the reader to decide. I have already included a comment from Tipps. There is very little on Econmus from any other source: Tipps "Most extant treatments of the battle by ancient authors are disappointingly brief". I could add "The classicist Adrian Goldsworthy states that "Polybius' account is usually to be preferred when it differs with any of our other accounts" " if you think that it helps.
Yeah, just to remove any doubt. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discovered several bronze rams in the area, which appear to confirm the date and location of the battle" Link ram? I first thought it was a bronze goat...
Done. Apologies, I linked ramming and missed this.
  • "destroyed with their city" Link to their city first here? Rome could also be linked at first mention.
Both done.
  • "The war there was approached a stalemate" Is the "was" needed? r should it be "had"? Or "was approaching"?
Good point. I have gone with "The war there had reached a stalemate".
  • Now the article doesn't mention why it was called the Punic war, could maybe be mentioned somehow that Carthaginians were Punics/Phoenicians? I know it's details that would be explained in the parent article, but I still wonder if there should be some mention of this to clarify for those unfamiliar with the subject?
Added as a footnote at first mention.
  • "(close to what is now Tunis)" I wonder if this should rather be mentioned after the first mention of Carthage?
This is the first mention of Carthage as a city, as opposed to Carthage the state; other than "their city" where it wouldn't, IMO, be appropriate. In a similar way, "Rome" sometimes means the state and sometimes the city.
@FunkMonk:: Thanks for looking through. Your comments above now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Last comments now added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could that large image under Battle get a descriptive caption? Though it might seem self-explanatory, I think something like the description on Commons could be helpful, "A map/diagram of the phases of the Battle of Ecnomus".
Seems a bit redundant to me, but done. I copied over the alt text
  • Echelon formation is linked twice in the same section.
Whoops. Fixed.
  • "Several Roman ships were rammed and sunk, as were several Carthaginians." Carthaginian? More congruent with Roman.
Drat. Thank you. Done.
Thanks again FunkMonk. Any more? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks FunkMonk. Sadly, source material on the First Punic War is extremely limited and so there are not many clashes which will support an article. I did enjoy researching this, so may well look at Battle of Drepana and Battle of the Aegates one day. Currently I am working up a trio of articles on naval aspects of the Seven Years' War; the first, Battle of Lagos, is at ACR. (Hint!) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I went through this in detail at Milhist ACR, so have little to add. Great map sequence, BTW, it really helps in understanding of the battle.

Thanks. Andrew does great work, doesn't he?

A couple of minor comments:

  • "along the coast of Sicily Heraclea Minoa" to?
Whoops. Thank you.
  • "Regulus then moved to reinforce Vulso's attack on the third Carthaginian squadron" but isn't the Carthaginian 1 squadron that is against the coast? Isn't Vulso (Roman I squadron) attacking the Carthaginian 1 squadron (which is attacking the Roman III squadron)?
Yes to all of that. I am using "third" to mean 'the third and final of the three squadron under discussion', not 'the squadron labeled as number 3', but I can see how it is confusing. I would like the description to be independent of the map, so how about: 'Regulus then moved to reinforce Vulso's attack on the last Carthaginian squadron still fighting, which was now surrounded'?
I think that keeping the description independent of the map partly defeats the purpose of having the map. I think you would be better off being more explicit and maintaining the links to the map throughout. When reading the account of the battle, I had to go across to the map regularly to confirm exactly what squadron was being discussed, and the original sentence didn't make that any easier, as I had to interrogate the map to an even greater extent to see which one was Regulus' squadron, then follow its movements to see which one is being referred to. Calling it the third Carthaginian squadron at this point was just unnecessarily confusing when referring to the map, which is what most readers will be doing. Alternatively, but not as useful as explicitly linking the description to the map throughout, would be to better explain which squadron this was in terms of its position, such as "the Carthaginian squadron fighting near the coast", or similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peacemaker67: are you suggesting that I should give the squadron designation from the map after each and every mention of a squadron? Apologies if I am labouring this, but when I asked your advice on this issue pre-nom you responded "I think introducing them using the relevant numeral at first mention is all that is required given the map is so clear." Obviously on rereading you may change your mind, but I want to check that I am reading your words correctly. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On rereading, I think at a minimum you should maintain the numerical references in the text when mentioning them, even if you don't actually use them in parentheses each time (retain the initial parentheses). Refer to the third Roman squadron or first Carthaginian squadron. For example, you could say "The third Roman squadron towing the transports" and "The first Carthaginian squadron, on the landward side, attacked the third Roman squadron towing transports" etc. Is that any clearer? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so. Like this? Is it now easier to follow? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peacemaker67, that's good of you. Two good points. Both addressed, but could you see what you think to how I have handled the second. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Suggest scaling up the Punic War map (and caption needs editing for grammar), rower position diagram, and battle diagram
All four done.
  • File:D473-birème_romaine-Liv2-ch10.jpg: where is the original work located, and does that location have freedom of panorama?
Removed as not really relevant. This ship type was not present at the battle.
  • File:Hannibal_Slodtz_Louvre_MR2093.png should include a tag for the original work.
Done.

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for taking a look at this. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

I shall be supporting the elevation of this splendid article, but, more meo, I have a few quibbles first.

  • Lead
    • "Due to the combined total" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. I might be inclined to change "Due to the" to "With a" or some such.
Bless you sir. I believe that I have previously mentioned my regrettable overindulgence in American light fiction. Done.
  • Sources
    • "(c. 200–c. 118 BC)" – the pop-up is clever, but do we need it twice within the one pair of brackets?
I believe so. But I am, as always, willing to bow to your superior judgement. Second pop-up removed.
    • "Carthaginian written records were destroyed … and his account of the First Punic War is based on several earlier, now lost, Greek and Latin sources" – I see what this means, I think, but it seems at first glance to mean that the surviving sources are earlier than the lost Carthaginian ones, which I don't think you mean.
American light fiction involving time travel. Rewritten to be more chronologically probable.
    • "the modern historian G. K. Tipps … much debated by more recent historians" – so Tipps isn't all that modern, perhaps?
Hmm. I have attempted to work around that. See what you think.
  • Operations in Sicily
    • "their opponent to wear themselves out" – singular noun with plural pronoun
That actually works for me. I have pluralised the noun, but it now doesn't seem to quite scan.
    • "land based power" – hyphenate? (not sure – just raising the point)
Yes, you are correct. Perhaps the weakest of my many weak points. Hyphenated.
  • Ships
    • The OED is with you all the way on the words for ships with three, four, five and six rows, but I just wonder (no reply needed) how 4- and 5-rowed ones get a Latin name but a 6-rowed one is in Greek. I'm rambling – ignore this.
I refer you to Hellenistic-era warships#Heavy warships. You may also care to browse the improbable Tessarakonteres.
  • Battle
    • "However, the Romans had become more skilled" – nothing wrong with this, but it's the fourth (of five) "however" in the text and one does begin to notice the repetition of the word.
I habitually overuse this and weed vigorously before nominating. Either I forgot, or it was seriously over-howevered when it went through ACR. Now reduced to a solitary example.

Nothing there to cause alarm and despondency, and I'll look in again soon to add my support, I hope. – Tim riley talk 21:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening Tim, and many thanks for dropping by. All of your entirely to the point comments addressed above. I await your next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Well and widely referenced, balanced, highly readable and splendidly illustrated. A pleasure to review. Tim riley talk 08:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions

[edit]
  • written some time after 167 BC

written sometime after 167 BC

Done.
  • on the few occasions they had previously felt the need

on the few occasions, they had previously felt the need

That doesn't seem to make sense. (To me.)
  • As novice shipwrights the Romans built copies

As novice shipwrights, the Romans built copies

Done.
  • six oarsman per bank

six oarsmen per bank

Done. Good spot.
  • and in rough sea conditions the corvus became useless

and in rough sea conditions, the corvus became useless

I don't think so.
  • by number of combatants involved

by the number of combatants involved

Done.
  • Rather than sail direct from Phintias for North Africa

Rather than sail directly from Phintias for North Africa

OK.
  • The Roman fleet in turn was devastated by a storm while returning to Italy

The Roman fleet, in turn, was devastated by a storm while returning to Italy

Done.
  • The Roman third squadron, which had been towing the transports, felt themselves outmatched and retreated to the shore.

The Roman third squadron, which had been towing the transports, felt outmatched and retreated to the shore.

Well now. What I am trying to get away from is the suggestion that a "squadron" can "think", but I can see that this is not satisfactory. How about 'The commanders of the Roman third squadron, which had been towing the transports, felt themselves outmatched and retreated to the shore.'?
Just great.
@Hanberke: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

--Hanberke (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hanberke. Many thanks for those helpful suggestions. All addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

A clean bill of health.

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All formats consistently presented
  • No quality/reliability issues.

Very professionally done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine

[edit]

I reviewed this for GA, but since I see a lot of work in the meantime, I'll throw another look at it. I'll be doing some copyedits as I go along, Gog the Mild, feel free to challenge/revert. Constantine ✍ 15:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • the quinquereme or pentērēs I think we can dispense with the Greek term here, it is unnecessarily confusing
Good point. Dispensed with.
Fixed.
  • Modern replicas of ancient galleys since there is only one such replica I know of, and you have mentioned the Olympias before, I'd suggest making it explicit here
Sensible. Done.
Fixed it abit, looks good.
  • 80 picked legionaries. I don't have access to the sources right now, but were they really 'picked'? 26,000 legionaries is too large a force to be 'picked' in any realistic sense, and the size is pretty much the infantry of two standard consular armies of the time.
Goldsworthy: “The pick of the Roman infantry were taken on board.” Tipps: “an additional 80 picked men from the legions .... were embarked on each warship”. Polybius (Paton translation): “Selecting the best men from their land forces”. I can only go with what the sources provide.
OK then, if this relies on the primary account, no worries from me.
  • and in sight of Mount Ecnomus why is this relevant?
Why is anything relevant. It is the only way that we know, or the participants knew, where the battle took place. It is a known fact, so why not include it? As we would include Sicily or Mediterranean. I have no objections to removing it if you prefer.
My point was why the mountain is relevant when we already know the location of the cape. In other words, why is the additional clarification necessary? Is this because the fleets were close to the shore so that the mountain was still visible? But this should be evident from the overall description of the battle... I don't have a problem with it remaining in the article, I am merely asking...
I understood. Like you, I am not overconcerned either way. Rereading, with as open a mind as I can manage, I am marginally in favour of leaving it in.
  • Although the Romans had become more skilled over the four years since they first built their navy, while the recent large increase in the size of the Carthaginian navy meant many of their crews had little experience. If you want to keep this phrasing, then it must be connected to the previous sentence by removing the full stop after "standards of the Carthaginians" and inserting a comma. Otherwise, something like "However, the Romans had become more skilled over the four years since they first built their navy, while the recent large increase in the size of the Carthaginian navy meant many of their crews had little experience.".
I can see that my original phrasing doesn’t work, thank you. I have resolved it, I believe, but in a different way. See what you think.
Hah, I love my "however"s. Looks good.
Did I say a word?
  • The battle was decided in the fight between the two fleets' centres. at the risk of verbosity, I would suggest reminding the reader which squadrons these were (2nd Carthaginian and I and II Roman), since the entire preceding section is about other squadrons, and the term 'centre' is a bit unclear in this confused battle. Furthermore, I would recommend breaking off this section (from "The battle was decided" on) and joining it to the next one, as more coherent.
Both done.
What is the {{and}} for?
A typo. Fixed.
  • to adorn the rostra add a brief explanation that the rostra was the speaker's platform
Rereading, I have simply put it into English. I don't know what I was thinking, introducing it in Latin.
  • Given that the article goes into some detail about wider issues (the navies, doctrines, ships, etc) I think it should be noted in the "Aftermath" section that Ecnomus (or perhaps the First Punic War) replaced Punic thalassocracy in the Western Med with a Roman one, to the extent that the Carthaginians fought the Second Punic War mostly on land.
It goes into the detail of areas necessary to understand the battle. The Second Punic War seems to me to be getting pretty remote. Although wherever one draws the line it is liable to be arbitrary. Nevertheless, once I can source it properly I will include a sentence to that effect.
I leave this to your discretion as article author. It certainly is not a deal breaker.
Rereading, you have a point about the transfer of thalassocracies. (Now there is a phrase to get your teeth into.) I have included something a little more general than you suggested, but which hopefully tapers out the Aftermath a little more satisfactorily..

That's all from me, apart from the nitpicking above, the article is in great shape and I will be happy to support. Constantine ✍ 16:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Constantine, I am travelling at the moment, so I will make the last couple of tweaks once I can access my paper sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Constantine All addressed now. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Happy with your edits, and happy to support. Constantine ✍ 12:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query to the coordinators

[edit]

@Ian Rose and Laser brain: Hi guys. I realise that this has only been open for 12 days, but considering the above I wondered if I might have permission to nominate my next one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I generally prefer to wait until at least two weeks but, hey, it's been that now so feel free...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian.
I figured that at worst you would say "No" or "In two days". Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 November 2019 [18].

Baker Street robbery

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Baker Street robbery is an event that has a separate identity to the reality of what happened. So many rumours circulate (the government issued a D-Notice to gag the press; one of the safety deposit boxes contained compromising photographs of Princess Margaret and the actor and criminal John Bindon; photos of a Conservative cabinet minister abusing children were found; no-one was arrested and no money was recovered). All utter tosh, but they squeezed a film out of it and when the Hatton Garden safe deposit burglary took place, immeditate parallels were made. All constructive comments are warmly welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lacks alt text.
  • Could we add "Baker Street burglary" to the redirects?
  • The Lloyds Bank link goes to the header page. Could the chapter and page numbers be given in the cite?

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]

I made a number of suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Baker Street robbery/archive1.

  • "A gang of burglars had tunnelled 40 feet" Suggest deleting "had".
  • "The conversations they had were overheard" Optional: → 'Their conversations were overheard'.
  • "Gavin, Tucker and Stephens were imprisoned for twelve year" Were they, or were they sentenced to 12 years?
  • A picky point: should "Background" point out that the location is London, for the hard of geography?
  • "Bank practice of the time was for staff to leave customers in private while visiting the vault; as soon as Tucker was alone, he would measure the room using the span of his arms and an umbrella he brought with him; he was aided in getting exact measurements by the regularly sized floor tiles, each of which was nine inches (23 cm) square." A slightly long sentence.
  • "Another of Gavin's friends, Mickey "Skinny" Gervaise, a burglar alarm expert, was brought on board, as were two men who have never been identified: "Little Legs" and "TH"; Lashmar reports that TH was a contact of Detective Inspector Alec Eist, whom he describes as "by reputation the most corrupt Yard officer of the 1950s to mid-1970s"." Consider splitting? (After "TH".)
  • In 1971, Chicken Inn was closed at weekends, at the same time as workers were digging up the road. You sure? (It's not my recollection of how the '70s worked.)
Fair enough. I am happy to accept the recollections of the honorable gentleman. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Up to 120 detectives worked on the case" Is "detectives" a synonym here for 'police officers'?
  • "Police soon tracked down the name of Wolfe" Can one "track down" a name? Possibly. Maybe it only looks a little odd to me.
  • "Towards the end of October 1971 police surveillance saw Tucker hand over" "police surveillance" can't see anything, only the people doing the surveilling can. (I am channelling Tim here.)
  • "The claim is dismissed by Duncan Campbell who writes "no D-Notice was even requested, far less granted";[65] the journalist Graeme McLagen observes that there was the embargo on the Sunday—while the burglary was still in progress—but that the events were widely reported over the following days" Suggest breaking the sentence after "granted" "

Excellent work. Just as good on a rereading. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That all looks good. Could you comment on the three points above "Gog the Mild"? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Missed those: all done now. - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley

[edit]

I gave SchroCat my comments offline and viva voce at peer review stage (as I was on a Wiki-break) and I was happy with the article as it emerged from PR. A handful of comments after a further perusal:

  • Background
    • "Dr. Watson" – unusual to see the otiose full stop in BrE these days.
  • Prelude
    • "Reg Tucker, a salesman of second-hand cars, with no criminal record" – this reads awkwardly (and is my fault for going on about it at PR stage.) I think you'd be better with something nearer your first thoughts, on the lines of "Reg Tucker, a second-hand-car salesman, who had no criminal record". (One could argue about including the second comma in that suggestion.)
  • Investigation
    • I deny all responsibility for Gog’s comment, above, about surveillance, but I think he's right.
  • My only other additional thought is that it might be useful to spell it out that the judge effectively killed the March 1973 lawsuit off once and for all. Those of us unfamiliar with the vagaries of the British courts may wonder how a judge can kick a case into touch by adjourning it without explanation.

These small points don't prevent my supporting the promotion of the article to FA. It seems to me comprehensive, balanced, well sourced and an excellent read. I am surprised how well you have managed to illustrate it. Plainly of FA standard, in my view. – Tim riley talk 12:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
How irregular. A few comments:
  • "The property also had a basement that, the group calculated, was at the same level as the bank vault.[18]" I might cut "also". You haven't said anything about the property itself to that point.
  • "Road works nearby meant the trembler alarms in the vault floor were turned off after several false alarms. " Is this over a single period, or some longer period.
  • "Gavin dug until he reached the basement of the Chicken Inn, and then continued under their basement, using their floor as the roof of the tunnel.[5] " Well, he didn't actually reach the basement, he tried to avoid it.
  • Were they charged with burglary? It's difficult to say from what's there.
  • The main news reports (Times and Guardian) but put it as "charged with breaking into the bank and stealing the contents of the security boxes", which is what we have (in the court case setion). Do you want it clarified or made more obvious with a mention in the lead? - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The journalist Graeme McLagen observes that there was the embargo on the Sunday" I'm not quite sure what that means.
  • "were found by the gang and left behind for the police to find," found/find
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129

[edit]

Sup SC. I see you the article doesn't comment on the link between the Baker Street Robbery and the assassination of Martin Luther King? ——SerialNumber54129 18:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be about the only thing that hasn't ever been connected to it... and JFK, I suppose. - SchroCat (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Was a joke. But suggest linking Alec Eist? ——SerialNumber54129 19:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers SN (and I guessed it was a joke!). I could have sworn I checked if we had an article, but obviously not (mind you, I've done so many searches of his erstwhile colleagues for another article, that they all blur into one in the end!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bet you were up all night with that one, SchroCat. Phnarr phnarr! :)
It's okay, not a reflection on your eyes or your sanity: when you last looked, Eist didn't have an article :) ([19])
Take care, ——SerialNumber54129 18:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

To make the pickiest of nits, the New Statesman is not actually a "newspaper". And the newspapers could be linked at first mention in the list of sources. Otherwise, links to sources all working, there are no other format issues I can find to niggle about, and the sources, collectively, are of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, Apologies and belated thanks for your review, as always. I've tweaked the "Newspapers" to "News sources", which should adequately cover the Statesman reference. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ceoil

[edit]

A very nice, pacey read. Had intended to only give a 1st look skim read before breakfast this morning, but read it straight through. No quibbles. Ceoil (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ceoil, that's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cassianto

[edit]

Nothing from me, other than to say that this an absolute peach. Congratulations. CassiantoTalk 23:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Cass - thanks very much. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

Is there an image review I'm not seeing? I see reference to alt text above but I'm unsure if that's meant to be a comprehensive review. --Laser brain (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was, but on relfection, you're probably right. Nikkimaria, are you able to do this? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the lead diagram and the map
  • File:Baker_Street_burglary_tunnel.svg: one of the source links has been deleted and the other is this article - suggest adding an external source that supports the data presented
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 November 2019 [20].

MLS Cup 1996

[edit]
Nominator(s): SounderBruce 02:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost playoffs season for Major League Soccer, so I thought it would be appropriate to try and bring the first-ever MLS Cup to featured status. The pitch was soggy from storms trailing a hurricane and had strong winds, but it didn't stop D.C. United from taking the first of seven trophies that they won during their run of dominance at the turn of the millennium. This article was expanded a few months ago and passed GAN in August, and relies heavily on newspaper coverage. SounderBruce 02:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]
General comments
Overall

It's a good article, will add more content here when I get some time.

Good article - Happy to support. Only issue I found was the captions for the first two images both saying "inaugural season", which is mentioned a lot in the article. I don't feel it's needed for this images. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

[edit]

Venue

  • "The league had planned to the stadium to 33,000 seats for the championship", something missing from this sentence.
    • Fixed.

Road to the final

  • "consisted of ten teams organized into two conferences", may be worth mentioning that they were based on geographical location.
    • Added links to the conference entries.

D.C. United

  • "who signed former Virginia Cavaliers coach Bruce Arena as its manager", the mix of plural/singular with who and its reads a bit oddly to me.
    • Fixed, and will look out for other mixes. American English is weird about the plural/singular rule with regard to sports teams.
  • "D.C. clinched a playoff berth", you've already stated this two sentences earlier in the third paragraph. Could just start the new paragraph with "In the playoffs..."
    • Fixed.
  • "whose appearance required a referee decision on the ordering of kick-takers", I feel like this leaves more questions than answers and I can't access the sources to clarify it either.
    • Added a sentence explaining the situation.
  • Could link ejection to Ejection (sports) as it's not a common term outside the U.S., certainly not in association football.
    • Done.

Los Angeles Galaxy

  • "formerly of the U.S. national team, was hired as the first head coach of the team", double use of team is a little repetitive perhaps.
    • Fixed.
  • "including defender Robin Fraser, midfielder Jorge Salcedo, and defender Curt Onalfo", perhaps grouping the defenders together to avoid reusing defender? So along the lines of, "including defenders Robin Fraser and Curt Onalfo and midfielder Jorge Salcedo"?
    • Fixed.
  • Link Rose Bowl?
    • Done.
  • Could probably drop Hurtado's first name from the third paragraph given we've had it twice in this section already.
    • Done.

Summary

  • "Game 1 of the World Series", might be worth adding "Major League Baseball's" or "baseball's" to this as not everyone will know what the World Series is.
    • Added.

Details

  • The match report appears to have expired.
    • Fixed the link.
  • Might be worth adding inline citations for match officials otherwise there's no obvious sign where they come from.
    • Added.

Post-match

  • Worth pointing out which trophy is the MLS Cup in the image caption. Especially given we don't have an image of the trophy elsewhere.
    • Can't tell which of the two 1990s trophies is for the 1996 cup, but I did try to describe it in the caption.

A few points I noted on an initial run through. A nice article overall. Kosack (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have addressed all the points you brought up. SounderBruce 20:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One further point I noticed, the term extra-time is used in the infobox and the match details section but overtime is the only term used in the prose. Is there a reason for the difference? Kosack (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The standard seems to be extra time, but overtime is more common (especially with the wackier MLS rules of yore). Switching them over now. SounderBruce 06:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support this. A high quality read and I believe it's of FA standard, nice work. As an aside, I have a football related FAC ongoing, Ninian Park, that could do with a few more reviews if you or any other editor is able to take a look. Kosack (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "but conceded two goals in the second half to force overtime play." Seems like the last word doesn't add much and could safely be chopped.
    • Chopped.
  • Venue: "The other finalist, RFK Memorial Stadium in Washington, D.C., which was instead prioritized for the 1997 edition." For the sentence to work grammatically, "which" needs to be removed.
    • Fixed.
  • D.C. United: "until the winning goal from Peter Vermes. Vermes...". Try not to have the name repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another like this.
    • Fixed.
  • Summary: "Game 1 of Major League Baseball's World Series, which was being played on the same night in Boston, was canceled." Um, the Red Sox didn't play in the 1996 World Series. This sentence needs to be removed entirely.
    • I mis-read the source; the same rainstorm had caused a cancellation, and I think it's worth including as it was affecting both league championships.
  • It's better if possible to not have a sentence start with a numeral like 42,368. This is also present in the lead, so that needs a fix as well.
    • Fixed both.
  • Post-match: "but were defeated 3–5 in the final...". Don't think the loser's score should be given first, since that style isn't used elsewhere in the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

I think it's inevitable with sports articles, especially those dealing with a specific fixture, that there will be heavy reliance on newspaper articles, because that's where the stuff is largely found, and where the books, if they appear, get most of their detail from. So I don't see that as an issue here. The refs are almost immaculately presented – I say "almost", because I found a couple of nits to pick:

  • In ref 25, "The Washington Times" should be linked
  • In ref 79, "Orange County Register" is linked earlier.

Links to sources are all working per the checker tool, so that's about it, really. Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Both issues have been fixed. Indeed there isn't a great selection of MLS books at the time of writing, but I did pick up one that went beyond what the newspapers of the time covered. SounderBruce 19:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

Image review? --Laser brain (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding the kits:
ALT text seems so-so to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias

[edit]
  • "The MLS Cup had an attendance of 34,643 spectators, falling short of the 42,000 people who paid for tickets, and included a large contingent of traveling D.C. supporters." The word order here feels off to me. I'm inclined to note the 42,000 first (ex. "42,000 tickets were sold, with 34,643 attending) but it then leads to questions of why roughly 8,000 tickets went unused. Is there any reason why so many tickets were sold but not used?
    • The order was suggested by another reviewer above. The sold tickets going unused is likely a direct result of the weather forecast.
      • Understood. I'm guessing there is no way to note this without going into WP:OR, so all good.
  • "...which signed former Virginia Cavaliers coach Bruce Arena as its manager in January 1996." Should note that the Virginia Cavaliers are from the university, as the current wording implies it is a club.
    • Fixed.
  • "Pope celebrated the championship-winning golden goal..." and "...scored the winning golden goal in the 94th minute". Isn't it redundant to have "winning" and "golden goal"? I'll admit my soccer terminology is not too strong, so if that's acceptable please say so.
    • It's not a familiar concept to some, so I think it is fine to be redundant here.
      • Fair enough. Works for me.

Not a lot really, and will be glad to support once the above are addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SounderBruce: Progress on these? --Laser brain (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't manage to see this earlier. I'll be able to ban he the changes within a few days when I return home. SounderBruce 19:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaiser matias: Thanks for the review. I've fixed one thing and answered your two other queries. SounderBruce 03:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, I'm happy to support now. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19 November 2019 [21].

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 04:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is the quintessential German Expressionist film, was described by Roger Ebert as the "first true horror film", and has been widely praised as revolutionary work of cinema. It has been listed as a listed as a level-5 vital article in the Art category. The article is currently a good article and has undergone a peer review. Look forward to working with you guys on any additional feedback to hopefully get it to FA status. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 04:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Das_Cabinet_des_Dr._Caligari.JPG: since this is on Commons it should include a tag for status in country of origin
  • File:The_Cabinet_of_Dr_Caligari_Holstenwall.png: in order for the URAA tag to be valid, we need to know the image's status in its country of origin. Same with File:The_Cabinet_of_Dr_Caligari_Werner_Krauss.png and File:The_Cabinet_of_Dr_Caligari_Conrad_Veidt.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nikkimaria I'm a little unsure how to handle this. (Apologies, I should have realized the image status should have based on German copyright law, not U.S.). If I'm correctly reading German copyright law, based on #33 on this link, the term of protection is the life and 70 years after the death of the longest surviving of the authors of the image; in this case the director and cinematographer. (I don't believe the screenwriters would apply here because the copyright pertains to an image, not the script.) If that is the case, because director Robert Wiene and cinematographer Willy Hameister both died in 1938, the image is no longer protected and can be used. But 1) would you say I'm interpreting this correctly and 2) how do I express this on the image tags? — Hunter Kahn 00:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

It's not my favourite film, but I've seen it. Definitely a worthy topic for a star.

  • Could I ask you to add citations for the quotes in the lead? We should really be providing sources for all quotes, even if they're sourced elsewhere in the article.
  • Perhaps a picture of Caligari next to Schopenhauer would add some visual interest to the writing section? Just a thought!
  • "(See the Themes section for more.)" This strikes me as self reference, which are to be avoided. Maybe {{see also}} at the top of the section would be better? Same for "(See Visual Style for more.)"
    • I think you are correct that this is an unnecessary self-reference, and I actually think putting the "See also" reference to the top of each section is not only unnecessary, but could lead to confusion. So I've simply removed the self-reference altogether... — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics widely agree that the discovery of the screenplay strongly undermines Kracauer's theory" Two things; first, do your cited sources specifically say that there's wide agreement on this? Second, perhaps the fact that the theory has been undermined belongs in the lead?
  • "Die Pest in Florenz (1919) and the two parts of Fritz Lang's The Spiders (Die Spinnen)" Why translate one title but not the other? Also, I think you link The Spiders above.
  • "The camera does not play a large part in Caligari, and is used primarily to show the sets.[28][80] The cinematography tends to alternate only between medium shots at straight-on angles and abrupt close-ups to create a sense of shock, but with few long shots or panning movement." I'm struggling with these lines. Could they be revisited?

Stopping there for a time. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note I will be traveling on and off for the next two weeks. I should still have access to the Internet and Wikipedia, but there may be sporadic periods where I'm unavailable. I'll do my best to respond to any comments made during that time, and will address them as soon as I can. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 23:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lotte Eisner, author of The Haunted Screen, writes that objects in the film appear as if they are coming alive and "seem to vibrate with an extraordinary spirituality".[91] Likewise, Expressionismus und Film writer Rudolf Kurtz wrote" Just a thought: I'd be more interested to know their expertise than the title of their books. "Film critic", "film historian", something like that. I note that Eisner's already been mentioned.
  • "As German film professor Anton Kaes wrote" When you say "as", you're editorialising a little - you're saying "Kaes is right to say that". This may run up against NPOV.
  • "and in the case of the film's characters represents an emotional response to the terror of society that Dr. Caligari and Cesare represent" Tricky - this could perhaps be massaged a little.
    • Reworded to "...and the film's characters represent an emotional response to the terror of society as embodied by Dr. Caligari and Cesare." Let me know if this is better. — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a "cartoon and (a) reproduction of designs rather than from what actually took place on stage"" If the "(a)" is the addition of you or another author, you should use square brackets.
  • What does "iris-in" mean?
  • "(see the Themes section for more)" Another self-reference to be removed, perhaps?
  • "(See Writing for more.)" Ditto.

Stopping again - really interesting stuff. Please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • These sentences are very close together: "David Robinson said, as time passed, filmgoers have been less inclined to interpret the film as a vindication of authority because modern audiences have grown more skeptical of authority in general, and are more inclined to believe Francis's story and interpret the asylum director as wrongly committing Francis to silence him.[130]" ... "By the end of the film, viewers realize the story they have been watching has been told from the perspective of an insane narrator, and therefore they cannot accept anything they have seen as reliable truth" These feel like they contradict each other!
    • I added an "according to Brockmann" attribution to the second sentence, to further clarify that these are two different interpretations by two different scholars. I think this addresses your concern, but if not let me know. — Hunter Kahn 13:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Francis's or Francis'? I prefer the former, for what it's worth.
  • "The question of perspective turns in Dr Caligari into a question of worldview since, beyond Francis' individual circumstances, the film was written by pacifists who were opposed to what Eisner described as the willingness of Germans to commit themselves to the dark forces, such as demoniac magic and supernatural powers, that led to death on the battlefield." Tricky sentence. Could this be broken down a little? Actually, that whole paragraph is a little tricky, and the tone is off: more critical theory paper than Wikipedia article. Perhaps it could be revisited?
  • " the viewer cannot help but suspect a malevolent aspect of him at the conclusion of the film" Says who? I think it's fairly clear that there are multiple readings about what is and is not "real", so perhaps language claiming one way or another will need to be toned down?
  • I'm not going to get hung up on this, but there's some inconsistency about whether or not the article uses the Oxford comma.
  • "for a stage adaptation of the film" I'm perhaps more interested in stage adaptations than soundtracks; is it perhaps worth another subsection for stage adaptations? Actually, I note that a few of the things discussed in that section go beyond music... "Music and stage", perhaps? I'm not sure. There may be another way to split this content up, but I'm just thinking aloud.

A very strong article; please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this; I've recently started a new job and moved house, so it's been a busy couple of months for me. I'm looking again at the themes section, as it was here that I felt a few problems crept in. In particular, there's a tough paragraph (the last one in the point of view section) that I don't think is going to be decipherable for readers who haven't encountered a bit of literary theory.

  • "Mayer and Janowitz were pacifists opposed to what Eisner described as the willingness of Germans to commit themselves to the dark forces, such as demoniac magic and supernatural powers, that led to death on the battlefield." Really? Germans committed themselves to magic and supernatural powers? If that's what the author says, but...
    • lol I totally understand why that would stand out, but I just double-checked the source, and he does say it that way. — Hunter Kahn 22:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Hunter Kahn: Sorry to pick up on this again, but I wonder if it's worth quoting directly. This claim is just too weird to me. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @J Milburn: The exact quote is "mysticism and magic, the dark forces to which Germans have always been more than willing to commit themselves". Because of the way Lotte structured the sentence it's a bit hard for me to just quote directly, but I could change the sentence to something like this: "Mayer and Janowitz were pacifists opposed to what Eisner described as the willingness of Germans to accept "mysticism and magic, the dark forces to which Germans have always been more than willing to commit themselves," which Lotte said had led to death on the battlefield." Would you prefer this to the original sentence? — Hunter Kahn 19:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • How about something like "Mayer and Janowitz were pacifists opposed to claims of magic and mysticism, which Eisner called "the dark forces to which Germans have always been more than willing to commit themselves" that lead in turn to death on the battlefield." Or does that change the meaning of the sentence? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to edit that tricky passage about Eisner's views to be a little more readable/neutral. That said, I can't really make anything of "Kracauer was nevertheless concerned that the exposure of the German soul by German films in the 1920s made it even more into a riddle."
  • "His writing anticipates" Whose writing? According to who? This feels like editorialising.
    • This particularly sentence (and source) were added by someone else, not me, after the point that I had gotten it to GA status. I had missed it until now. I've dug up and looked at the source, and it doesn't mention Caligari at ALL. It seems to me whoever added it was trying to draw a parallel between the film and the subject of that book, but since the comparison wasn't overtly part of the actual source material, I agree with you that it was editorializing and I've removed it. — Hunter Kahn 22:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "an unrepresentable totality"? What is "the unconscious proletariat"?
  • "it is possible for the viewer suspect a malevolent aspect of him at the conclusion of the film, even despite all evidence indicating he is a kind and caring man." But you've just said that it's ambiguous at the end; is it really the case that "all evidence" points towards one reading rather than the other?
    • I've changed it from "all evidence" to just "evidence", so as to not make it so definitive. I'm not sure if this fully addresses your concern, but if it doesn't, let me know. — Hunter Kahn 22:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "particularly in the contrasts between black and white. This is particularly" Repetition

Hope this is helpful. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. I've left one reply above, and made a few small edits, but I now think that the themes section (surely the most difficult section to write and to follow) is looking very good. It reads well, it's relatively accessible, and it seems both neutral and internally consistent. I've only glanced at other parts of the article since my first read-through, but they were strong to start with. (We have some differences in style, but it'd be inappropriate for me to insist that you change!) Josh Milburn (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Good choice of FAC material as an important film in the history of cinema - kudos for taking it on.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should Bundesfilmarchiv be italicised as it is a foreign word?

**Done. — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC) *Do we have rule that on subsequent mentions it should be "Dr Caligari" or "Caligari" as both are in the Plot section...?[reply]

    • I don't believe there's a rule per se, but I agree they should be consistent, and it does appear both are used at different times throughout the article, so I've changed every reference to "Dr. Caligari" to just "Caligari", except for the first reference in the plot summary and, of course, any quotes or references to the film's title... — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • What's the source for the list of uncredited actors?
    • That list was in the article before I started contributing to it, but since I wasn't able to immediately find a source add to it (and in fact it seems there are differing accounts as to whether Rudolf Klein-Rogge even appeared in the film), I've removed it altogether from the Cast section for now. — Hunter Kahn 16:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN87: is this an authorized republication?
    • It's a bit unclear to me. This information had previously been cited by other sources, and another editor changed it and added this link; but since the link is dead I think it has only added confusion. I've restored the original citations. — Hunter Kahn 16:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Fandor a high-quality reliable source?
  • FN148: see WP:ROTTEN
    • WP:ROTTEN says "Some review aggregation websites, such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, are considered reliable sources, but information from them should be used in proper context and have some limitations." Rotten Tomatoes is only used as a citation for the information about the film's 100% rating and the website's consensus blurb, which seems appropriate to me according to the guideline and its required limitations. Do you disagree? — Hunter Kahn 16:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do. One of the stated limitations is with regards to the release date of the film, with post-2000 films being more accurately reflected in the scores; given the date of this film I'm not convinced that the usage is appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree here, and I hope this one minor point of subjective disagreement won't make you oppose the FAC. WP:ROTTEN is an essay, not a guideline or policy, and in my view the main point of the essay is that information from aggregation websites "should be used in proper context". In this case, the context is simply two sentences at the very end of the Reception section; it's not as if it's in the article lead, or blown out of proportion and given undue weight. Very few films have a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, so I think it's very appropriate that it gets a brief mention in the article, and the two sentences expressly specify how many reviews the aggregation is based upon (as suggested by WP:ROTTEN), which further clarifies the context of the information. — Hunter Kahn 02:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Berg-Ganschow is missing location

Coordinator notes

[edit]

@Hunter Kahn: I've added this to Urgents but we seem to have stalled. I'll have to archive this soon if it doesn't see significant movement. --Laser brain (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I definitely plan to be back for another look, but I don't have as much time for Wikipedias a I used to. I'm sad that this isn't drawing a little more attention! Is it worth leaving a note at the horror WikiProject? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laser brain I'd be happy to add a note to the Horror WikiProject and Film WikiProject above, as J Milburn suggested, as long as that's not inappropriate? (I just don't want to come across as WP:CANVASSING. As for where things stand right now, so far there's one Supoprt vote and one vote that seems to be trending in that direction, and I haven't received any actionable comments on areas that need improvement so I could bring it back to FAC if it fails, so if it were archived I'm not sure what would be the next step? — Hunter Kahn 14:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem—I wouldn't construe that as canvassing assuming the note is neutrally worded. Unfortunately for nominations that get archived for lack of activity the only next step is to re-nominate later and hope for more attention. I do find that poking at nests of potential reviewers can be helpful, or reviewing other nominations in hopes of receiving a return review. --Laser brain (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SnowFire

[edit]

Quite a long article. It's obviously well-researched, and I'm sure all the references check out; it's nice work. My biggest worry is one of overall tone / stance / volume of text: the article portrays this more as an expressionist film with important themes & arty stuff first that happened to also be marketed as a grubby horror movie. There's a lot more information on the first than the second. But that's not my impression of the film; it's usually been portrayed in non-Wikipedia places as a work of classic horror first, one of the first horror movies, that also happened to be arty and weird as a side thing. For example, at the EMP / MoPop museum, they had an exhibit on Caligari, and it was placed in the horror section, included video interviews with modern horror directors, and talked all about it as an inventive and creative horror movie. Nothing about authority & conformity. I recognize that these sources surely exist, and I'm not asking for them to be stricken, but lines like "Though often considered an art film by modern audiences" read as weird to me: no it isn't? At least to my knowledge? It's considered an art film by academics who are into that kind of thing, but not everyone.

More helpfully, I think the lede could cut down a lot from Siegfried Kracauer's book; not clear to me why quoting his opinions extensively in the lede is proportionate coverage. It's fine to mention that writers have drawn the Caligari = German Government = proto-Hitler connection, but Kracauer is just one person; the twist ending is fine from the stance of "repeated horrifying revelations" where things keep getting worse and stranger, for example, even if he felt it dulled its political statement. (Which isn't really clear to me anyway that this is actually true, or that other writers agree that the twist ending messes with this - I mean, the whole movie is fictional, what's another layer.) SnowFire (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response to your comments, I've toned down the mentions of Kracauer from the lead, removing his name altogether, more generally attributing some of the themes he discusses, and removing his argument about the addition of the frame story altogether. I also reworded "Though often considered an art film by modern audiences" to "Though often considered an art film by some modern critics and scholars", again to make it a more general statement, but I assure you, it IS considered an art film, and the citations I use with that section reflect that. As for your more over-arching remarks, I'm not entirely sure how to respond, especially since it seems to be based upon your own subjective impression of what the movie is/was, rather than reliable sources. Everything in the article as it stands now is cited by verifiable sources. That being said, can give me any more specific examples of areas that you feel are either incorrect or need to be scaled back? — Hunter Kahn 20:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edit, the lede looks better now.
I don't think anything is "incorrect", exactly. As I noted, this is clearly an impressive work that's read the scholarship. And yes, I am basing some of my commentary on my own personal experience, so I'm willing to show a lot of deference to someone who's read the sources; I'm just one data-point. That said, my general worry is about proportionate coverage. Put things another way, imagine if Jaws had 50% of the article discussing its impact on Hollywood's revenue model, on blockbusters, on its influence on marketing, and so on. These are all valid things to cover, and people have written entire long magazine articles and chapters of books on that subject, so no problem with grabbing reliable sources. However, there's plenty of other stuff to talk about for Jaws as a movie, too. The section in "Critical reception" is great, for example - I suppose I was hoping for a little bit more content such as that, on why Caligari is considered a foundational horror movie, its influence on other horror movies (similar to how other German Expressionist cinema is covered), and so on. There's extensive (sourced!) coverage on the artier aspects, which is fine, but there is somewhat less coverage of things like Rotha's comments, more on the influence on 30s horrors films in Hollywood beyond superficial "there's a monster & mind control" level observations, or if any modern horror directors had things to say about Caligari other than "it's good". Again, to be clear, it's in the article (crazy, dementia-esque set design, makeup, etc.), it's just a matter of overall relative amounts.
That said, I recognize that some of my desires may be impossible, and to be clear I do think it's a comprehensive and well-written article as is. If you ever get a chance to find more on the horror side, I think it'd be a great addition! And to be clear, it was certainly interesting reading about the historiography and changing impressions of the films from dueling scholars. So support. SnowFire (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paleface Jack Comment

[edit]

Looking over the article, there is only one reference issue there. The Uta Berg-Ganschow and Wolfgang Jacobsen reference in the bibliography has no citation attached to it in the body of the article. You should find a way to put that citation in the sfn format in the article. Hope this helps.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, that book is not used as a source in this article (someone else must have added it), so I've simply removed it from the bibliography. Thanks for pointing it out! — Hunter Kahn 20:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 November 2019 [22].

Jill Valentine

[edit]
Nominator(s): Homeostasis07 (talk) and Aoba47 (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a character from the Resident Evil game and film series. After the previous FAC was closed, I was advised by a coordinator to work with an "experienced" FA writer before renominating. During that time, I've collaborated with @Aoba47: – who has written 24 FAs – to improve the article, and I genuinely believe it meets the FA criteria. I also initiated a discussion at a high-profile talk page, in which every previous contributor was pinged, with limited response. I believe this article satisfies the FA criteria, and would appreciate as much feedback as possible. Regards, Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 00:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Toa Nidhiki05

[edit]

Going to give this a look per a request on my talk page from Homeostasis07; I'm a gamer but not very familiar with the Resident Evil series, so hopefully I can give this a good look. Toa Nidhiki05 01:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All issues are resolved now - this looks really good! Happy to offer a support here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved issues
Grammar check
Lede
  • I would change the mention of appearing in the film series to be in the past-tense, as the series has seemingly concluded. This could be modified if she appears in a reboot, but for now the series is done. Toa Nidhiki05 03:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concept and design
  • Would change "was redesigned" to "has been redesigned" since the series is ongoing.
Appearances
  • Remove the comma before "and that its undead occupants are scientists who had been developing the T-virus mutagen".
  • What are the continuity reasons preventing the characters from Resident Evil 2 from appearing?
  • According to the Resident Evil 3: Nemesis article, the game takes place a day before Resident Evil 2. I think that is what being referenced, but I will leave this up to Homeostasis07. Aoba47 (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the comma before "capable of infecting the aquatic ecosystem"
  • Remove the comma after "but before her career in law enforcement".
  • You might could include a mention that the character did not return for the final Resident Evil film, when she was evidently killed offscreen. Bloody Disgusting said this was a major plothole.
  • That is a good point. I remember in a past FAC, a reviewer did not believe Bloody Disgusting is a good source for a FA. According to this interview with Milla Jovovich, Sienna Guillory was not invited back because "there are a lot of characters in the Resident Evil franchise and it’s difficult to have everybody involved". I do not believe the source is considered appropriate for an FA, but it is an interview so that context may make it appropriate. I will look up more information on it, and Homeostasis07 probably knows more than me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense. The main thing is that since the series is over and she didn’t appear in the last film, it might be worth noting that she didn’t and/or why. It’s not a major issue but it just is something that might worth noting for completion. Toa Nidhiki05 18:11, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Aoba and I have expanded this sentence using your source, as well as some others Aoba found. Although Bloody Disgusting was removed during a previous FA nomination, I never especially believed its exclusion was merited. It's a pretty huge website in terms of horror movies/hard rock music, and has had exclusive interviews with some pretty big names since then. Plus, this particular author has also written for The Austin Chronicle and Consequence of Sound, so I believe his article would be easily defensible from even the most stringent of source reviewer. In any case, there's now another 2 sources to fall back on. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 22:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reception and legacy
  • I might remove "has" from "has consistently received negative reviews", since the film series has evidently been completed.
References

*First off, props on going ahead and archiving everything. I failed to do this in some of my early GAs and FAs and some sources are lost now; this should prevent that.

  • Citation 1 says the YouTube channel is Capcom Unity, but it is actually called Capcom USA. The note of it being the official YouTube channel can also be removed.
  • Citation 12 should be to GamesRadar+; currently it pipes to that page from the former names, GamesRadar.
  • Citation 44 should link to Resident Evil 5 since all sources are being consistently linked.
  • Citation 48 should probably be changed to Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine; it currently redirects there via Official US PlayStation Magazine.
  • Citation 51 should link Capcom.
  • Citation 57 should link Eurogamer.
  • Citation 62 should link Resident Evil: Retribution.
  • Citation 63 should include a website or publisher field.
  • Citations 66-68 should link IGN.
  • Citation 92 should link The Escapist.
  • Citation 103 should link Rotten Tomatoes
  • Citation 106 should link Resident Evil: Apocalypse
  • Three references (18, 68, 73) link to Kotaku but only one includes G/O Media. Either all of them should include this or it should be removed from 73. Toa Nidhiki05 03:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HD/Derek Support on prose

[edit]
  • Made several read-throughs and I'm happy to give this nomination a support based on prose. It's comprehensive and not filled with trivial information. The article is really a product of hard work and resilience! As for other issues like sources and media, I'm not equipped with proper tools to do such tasks, so I'll leave it to other reviewers to spotcheck. A quick suggestion (which wouldn't impact my support whatsoever): there's a harv error for the source cited in "Further readings". Consider fixing it? HĐ (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: fixed the harv error by myself. To see harv-related errors, you should install some special documentation... I forgot what it's called, will try to find it here's the detailed guide to install the script: User:Ucucha/HarvErrors. Best of luck with the article, HĐ (talk) 07:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Darkwarriorblake

[edit]
  • I'm not a fan of having the Japanese/Hepburn translsations in the opening of an English article. I feel like this " ジル・バレンタイン" doesn't help anyone and it should probably be handed like it as on Japanese made games like Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. That said I won't not support it because of that, but I think it is something worth considering.
  • "She was introduced as one of two player characters in the original Resident Evil (1996), making her the first playable female character in the survival horror genre." seems like it's saying something more complex than it needs to be. Maybe something like "Introduced as one of two playable characters in the original Resident Evil (1996), Valentine is the first female player character in the survival horror genre."
  • I've read the entire article and I would say it is generally thorough. I was gonna bring up the Jill Sandwich meme but I can see you covered that as well. The only thing I would consider missing is any concept around her RE3 appearance. It seems to skip Nemesis almost completely there for the RE:Make and then on to RE:5. I see mentions of her casual clothing elsewhere but it seems like it'd belong in the concept part. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:52, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was actually a previous collaborator who suggested I remove those descriptions from the prose. I tried to compromise by placing them in other sections of the article where I considered them relevant, but obviously it wasn't a good idea in the first place—you're the 3rd person to bring this up as an issue [here and elsewhere]. I've happily re-incorporated those descriptions of her RE3 appearance to their rightful place, in 'Concept and design'. Thanks for your time in reviewing the article. It's definitely been a big help. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 23:13, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, and that is understandable. I will leave the image usage up to Homeostasis07, but I also understand the importance of keeping non-free media usage to a minimal. Aoba47 (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd love to be able to replace this image with a decent Creative Commons one, but the only pictures of Valentine in this particular outfit to be found on either CC or Flickr just... aren't very good. I actually don't hate that last one, but would there be a way of cutting out the Chris cosplayer without having to upload a new version? But I still don't think it's particularly representative of Jill Valentine, and a pretty solid case could easily be made for contextual significance with the current image(s)—a whole paragraph is dedicated to the reception of its various guises, and the image has an explanatory FUR, so its use should be fine. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 23:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there is a lot of commentary on it so it should hopefully be fine. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack

[edit]

Lead

  • "she is first playable female character in the survival horror genre" > she was the first playable female character...

Concept and design

  • "expertise in weapons and explosives handling and lock picking", is weapons and explosives handling meant to be one phrase? If not, drop the and for a comma.
  • "Her outfit in the game is a police uniform consisting of a beret, shoulder pads, tactical pants and combat boots", no t-shirt?
  • I'd start the third paragraph with Valentine's instead of her.

Voice-over and live-action actors

  • "original game's live-action cutscenes and did the voice work were", wordings a little clunky here. What about "recorded the woice work"?

In the Resident Evil series

  • "Every game in the series took place in the fictional American city", I think maybe "is set" rather than took place may work better.
  • "retreated into searching for colleagues", retreated would suggest they were forced back into the mansion. "entered into..." perhaps?

A couple of minor prose suggestions based on a quick run through. Kosack (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm not an expert on video game articles, but this seems like a good candidate for FA for me based on content and prose. Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by E.3

[edit]

Disclaimer: this is my first FA review and I am not a gamer, but I know the series and character. Overall there is a very engaging writing style to a non gamer. Just some prose suggestions

  • "She is described as being intelligent, brave and loyal, and as having expertise in weapons and explosives handling and lock picking." I would divide this sentence. Do you need to state who describes her as intelligent brave and loyal?
  • I will leave this point up to Homeostasis07 as he is more familiar with the games than myself. I think this sentence is referring to how the game describes her or presents her, but I could be mistaken. Aoba47 (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although the project leader positioned it on her chest to maximize her sex appeal" is this necessary, I don't see what it adds to the article.
  • I would say that it is necessary because it explains how her character design changed for the game. It adds to the reader's understanding of how the character was developed and presented for that game. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "visually appealing" how about tough, strong and and aesthetically attractive means the character potentially appeals to a broad demographic audience?
  • I have replaced the "visually appealing" part with a quote from the source to be more precise. I know "tough" and "strong" have their own distinct nuances, but I would be uncertain about using them both in the same sentence as it is a little repetitive. Aoba47 (talk) 01:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it reads pretty well and the previous issues seem to have been addressed. --[E.3][chat2][me] 00:30, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you for your comments, @E.3: I believe I've resolved them all. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns around sexualisation have been satisfactorily addressed, however as this is my first FA review, and I am male, I offer tentative support based on the final decision of @Victoriaearle:'s review. --[E.3][chat2][me] 14:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. For the record – and for any new reviewers watching – the article went through a massive 2-month-long peer review way back in November 2017, where the sexism issue was discussed and dealt with comprehensively (both the article's original nominator and the reviewers who initially complained about said sexism formed a clear consensus on how to proceed). I've tried my best to follow that consensus since then. I guess that's up to others to review at this point. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as discussed above based on my comments and Victoriaearle's review. --[E.3][chat2][me] 11:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Support from Victoria

[edit]

A couple of points:

  • Per the FAC instructions, have the primary contributors been notified/consulted re this FAC?
  • Both of the sources linked to (The World of Scary Video Games: A Study in Videoludic Horror and The Playful Undead and Video Games: Critical Analyses of Zombies and Gameplay) are actually used in the article already. Although the latter is a reprint of a source which was removed by consensus during the last peer review, I think I've found an acceptable way of reintroducing that particular one. All of the most useful sources listed at Google Scholar feature on the article. The others either don't contain anything particularly enlightening, or were also removed by consensus during the PR stage. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue of gender in video games was raised in previous FACs & the PR and Mikami's vision re designing characters has been previously discussed: it seems to me important, to satisfy criteria 1.b (thorough) & c (neutral & without bias), that his visions be teased out. He was adamant that Jill not be sexualized or objectified, that the characters are first and foremost human. The Guardian article tells us about Mikami:

"His characters, for example, are always strong but also vulnerable. They’re not gung-ho meatheads, packing enough heat to take down a whole army of the dead, they are confused, afraid – and usually very low on ammo."

and in his own words he explains,

"'I’m interested in vulnerable characters, in normal human beings,” says Mikami. “The horror experience is most scary when the player really isn’t sure whether their character is going to live or die – death and survival need to be on a constant see-saw. If there’s a situation where you’re not 100% sure that you can avoid or defeat the enemies, if you feel maybe there’s a chance you’ll make it – that’s where horror lies.'"

and,

"Aside from gothic architecture, lumbering monsters, sparse resources and jump shock, Mikami’s games have always been known for something else: strong female characters. The likes of Jill Valentine and Claire Redfield fought alongside their male counterparts in the Resident Evil games, dressed in similar combat fatigues, rarely succumbing to the usual overtly sexualised stereotypes."

continuing,

"It’s something Mikami is clearly passionate about. 'I don’t know if I’ve put more emphasis on women characters, but when I do introduce them, it is never as objects,” he says. “In some games, they will be peripheral characters with ridiculous breast physics. I avoid that sort of obvious eroticism. I also don’t like female characters who are submissive to male characters, or to the situation they’re in. I won’t portray women in that way. I write women characters who discover their independence as the game progresses, or who already know they are independent but have that tested against a series of challenges.'"[23]
    • This concept needs to be teased out from the beginning. As written the article tells us about Jill's various outfits and hair color, in other words, objectifying her, yet the essays in the newly released books put those aspects in context, which needs to be added.
  • Regarding the quotes, the general point of the first is presented in the article using a more verbose source; the second quote features in the article verbatim; the final two quotes are paraphrased and have been expanded using academic sources in the second paragraph of 'Reception and legacy', which I feel is where they belong. I don't see anything in either of the listed sources above which alter the context of anything currently presented in the article. Please feel free to correct if I've missed something blindingly obvious (which has happened before). Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, there are lingering prose issues throughout. Examples only - "is identified", "describes her personality as consisting of intelligence, bravery and loyalty", "is set, are set, is set", "Valentine returned", "she attempts", "She is also included", "the character also appears", lots of jarring tense shifts from past to present and use of past perfect, i.e "have depicted", "have resulted", "have claimed".
  • The structure is still off, i.e the "Reception" section is extremely stuffed and for some reason Mikami's premise isn't even mentioned until that point ("Shinji Mikami, expressed his opposition to the sexual objectification of women in video games") when it should occur at the beginning.
  • OK. Between you mentioning this and some of the comments made by E.3 above, I've decided it's best to move this to as early a section as possible prose-wise (the latter half of the first paragraph of 'Concept and design'). Let's just hope the people who objected to it appearing there in the first place don't object to it in the meantime. =( Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a full review, but they are issues that need attention. Victoria (tk) 02:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate it. Hopefully you'll understand my reasoning for contending some of the points, and that I'll be able to resolve everything else soon. Cheers, Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 20:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re sourcing: it's really best to lean as much as possible on high quality secondary sources, which do exist. Perron is noted in the references but only used a single time to cite a sentence that includes three other citations. Similarly, the Sara Grimes piece, a good secondary source, is only used a single time to cite a sentence with multiple references. If a point isn't contentious there's no reason to provide more than a single citation and best practice to lean as much as possible on high quality secondary sources, even if that requires swapping out or eliminating some of the lower quality primary or industry sources.
A quick glance at Sara Grimes piece reveals that Jill's name is mentioned at least 39 times; Paul Martin's piece has 30+ mentions. So those can be mined extensively, and should be. MacCallum's piece appears only to be used twice with direct quotes (don't forget to provide the ref directly at the end of the quotation), but here are a few important samples/snippets from her work:

Jill Valentine, Claire Redfield, and Ada Wong of the Resident Evil series are resilient characters with independent story arcs within the series

This goes to characteristics & the fact they have their own story arcs and aren't supporting characters

Their physical appearance-most usually dressed in combat attire-means that they initially avoid critiques of pandering to the male gaze, a visual trope which dominates female representation in gaming.

This is already used in the article, but I'm not sure Mikami's quotation should be stacked immediately after. One of them should be paraphrased; probably MacCallum. But the male gaze goes to a different concept than Mikami's

Notably, returned to the more cliched representations of women as fetishised objects or cyphers for their male companions is met with reduced interest (for example, the popularity of the Resident Evil series waned when Jill Valentine was presented as a mind-controlled BDSM assassin...

 This goes to the fact that in the later iterations, moving away from Mikami's influence, Jill's redesign realigns her with the more stereotypical game heroine, and goes to the fact that the mind-control device (the location of its placement is irrelevant) does just that: it controls her, and the character becomes something other than the original design concept.

There's lots and re “male gaze” w/ citations to other sources; those sources might be worth trying to find and looking at.

Every character in the original game returns to the franchise at some point, but Jill undergoes a signifant series of changes. More developed graphic capabilities allowed developers to repeatedly alter Jill’s appearance and clothing, and her reappearance as a mind-controlled villain in Resident Evil 5 race-switched the character from a mixed race Japanese-French woman, to a blonde with extremely pale skin .... This deliberate whitewashing of the character was received poorly by fans as was her new costume-a skin tight purple battle suit.

This explains the reasons for the redesigns, but again explains that she's "whitened". Though this seems like it would fit in the reception section, anything to do with design should be removed from that section, though this passage covers both the reasons for the redesign and the subsequent reception.

In short, Jill’s physical alterations has been symptomatic of an industry that traditionally skews towards pleasing a young, male, heterosexual player, but has increasingly realized that sexual stereotypes of desire do not sit well with a more nuanced audience

In Resident Evil 3 the player is only allowed the role of Jill Valentine, an unusual choice in a male dominated era, and possibly following the popularity of Lara Croft as a female protagonist, however this was one the episodes that received poor reviews

A number of secondary sources compare Jill (i.e Mikami's Jill) to Lara Croft. It might worth trying to run those down (I think I noted that in some of the g-scholar snippets)

Also the New York Times has articles available on the various releases and some are interesting in that they explain the premise of the first game, (not being able to shoot unless standing still; the danger of running out of ammunition (hence having extra ammunition is an advantage)). My suggestion is to look for, use and swap out as many sources as possible; i.e the section re the battle suit and lightening is discussed extensively in the secondary sources, whereas the Kotaku piece is promotional (it's selling an action figure). Don't rush the effort and ping me when ready to me revisit. Oh, one last thing, the consensus version (yes, it was almost there) is this one. It might be worth comparing to the current version. Victoria (tk) 00:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the insights, Victoria. I believe I have a fairly solid sense of where you want the article to go, and I have taken extensive notes from the Grimes and Perron sources (and a few others). I've been busy in real life (as well as finishing up some other reviews), so have only been able to make a partial attempt at it so far. I will hopefully have a few hours free tomorrow, so you should see some progress soon. Just thought I'd update everyone, and let you know I've not been ignoring you. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:57, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, appreciated. I'm not here every day, so no enormous rush. Best to take the time to get it right. Victoria (tk) 00:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks again, @Victoriaearle: I've tried my best to rephrase the article, with the general theme of your review running throughout. I think I've done a good job, but would appreciate your feedback at this point. The only thing I've not been able to incorporate so far has been moving all (i.e., all but one) of the design descriptions from 'Reception and legacy' to 'Concept and design'→I can't find a way of introducing the film series to that section (which is very much secondary to the game series). So I've left the commentary of her appearance in Resident Evil: Apocalypse where it is for now. Hope you don't mind. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about it. In the meantime, some comments re a few edits that I made and reverted.

  • Here I eliminated some low-level links, tightened the prose, left an inline comment (I thought I'd read she was the first playable female protagonist, not only in the horror genre, but I could be misremembering), the reader needs an explanation of her universe, i.e formerly of Delta Force begs the question of what she's doing now?
  • Valentine is the first playable female character in the survival horror genre. It is still notable benchmark. Some reports claim Samus Aran, who first appears in a 1986 game, is the first playable female protagonist, but I cannot say with absolute certain on that regard. I am certain though that Valentine is not the first ever as I can think of a few other examples prior to the first Resident Evil game. I believe later games retconned Valentine's past in the Delta Force, but I cannot say with absolute certainty. I have seen some fans speculate that her Delta Force membership does not makes given her age and the year in which the first game is set, but that is pure speculation. I will leave the rest of the comments up to Homeostasis07 as he is more of an expert on the matter than myself. Aoba47 (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first point is in parentheses, not a big deal and not worth quibbling over; the second point goes to the prose and flow: the reader is told she was formerly a member of Delta Force, but what is her job at the opening of Resident Evil? Presumably that information is useful, no? Victoria (tk) 22:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I clarified the part about the first playable female protagonist in case you were interested to know more about it. I do not disagree with your point about the Delta Force. Apologies if my response read that way. I was trying to respond with my understanding of the character and the franchise's treatment of her past Delta Force experience. I have a limited knowledge of the franchise's plot, but I believe Valentine is a member of a special forces division called the Special Tactics and Rescue Service at the start of the first game. @Homeostasis07: would know for certain though. I agree that this information is useful and should be addressed in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, I was short with you; was in the kitchen, multitasking & always a bad time of day to edit. I'd do something along the lines of "Formerly a member of Delta Force, where she excelled in bomb disposal, at the start of Resident Evil she is a member of Special Tactics and Rescue Service". I believe the article mentions the other positions she holds in the subsequent games. Victoria (tk) 23:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you both for your work on the article. I liked your edits, so have tried my best to incorporate as many of your points to (at least) the first paragraph of 'Concept and design'. I'll hopefully be able to address everything else tomorrow (fair warning: I'm taking the day off work to have some dental work done—I should be OK afterwards, but if I make some strange edits, you'll know why). As far as Jill being the "first playable female protagonist" goes, I don't believe that's accurate. As Aoba said, there's Samus from Metroid (1986, who is also discussed in the Grimes source), but also Karen/Karla from Alien Storm (1991) and (perhaps) the original, Ms. Pac-Man (1982, if you want to count an amorphous yellow blob with a bow on top as female). And as far as I'm aware, Jill's backstory has never been retconned. She's 22 in the original game, which would be more than enough time for her to complete the 6 months of training it takes to join Delta Force in real life. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here I bundled together the Mikami material for better flow, to set up the creation and multiple re-creations issues, and tightened the prose.
  • Here I kept together the issues re the original design vs. the subsequent re-designs & critical commentary. I added an inline re the quote from Kotaku, (there are better secondary sources & it seems a bit long).
  • Here I repositioned that paragraph again for flow, and the repositioned it again. Then I reverted it all for you and Aoba47 to put your heads together and discuss.
  • Some other general comments re issues still to be resolved in that section: per the criteria it's really best to swap out lower level sources for secondary, i.e Capcom, Guinness, Kotaku, etc. can all be replaced. I realize they are RS, but not necessarily the best available. Try cutting down who says what to avoid clunky prose; and try to tighten the prose. There are still tense issues, but I'm thinking about those. Victoria (tk) 21:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review of Resident Evil 6 here, which recaps original Resident Evil. Review of Resident Evil:3 here - scroll down a bit and there's a para re Jill. Both of these are good sources for the reception section too; which still needs trimming down. The NYT allows five free articles per month, so Aoba might be able to grab them. I've not had a chance to review the changes and need to read through the article, but have been out for a few days and probably won't be able to get back here today. Victoria (tk) 13:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some edits in an attempt to fix the structure and to tighten the prose, but I'm not wedded to them and don't mind if you all decide to revert all of them. This is a really difficult article to get right and I understand why so many people have previously been involved.
    Basically there are a number of contradictions that need to be explained and resolved:
    1. The contradiction between Mikami's premise of an independent, non-objectified Jill and the subsequent iterations of Jill in sexy miniskirt, in body suit, etc., i.e objectified, and the fact that her costumes are a feature of the gameplay, whereas Redfield's are not.
    2. There are additional contradictions in the article's structure: "Concept and design" discusses her various appearances (literally) in the various iterations of the series - appearances. The "Appearances" section presents the various plot outlines. "Reception" tells us she's independent and that she's a mascot. It tells us that she's a "competent, clever and professional" soldier, and yet that game publications rank her according to sex appeal.
  • Resolving these contradictions is really difficult, yet it's the underlying issue with getting the article right. My sense is that everything that's presented is to an extent right; Mikami's premise is what it is and then the character was changed; critics discuss different and contradictory facets of the character. The big problem is how to walk the line of not objectifying and overemphasizing physical appearance (personally I think there's too much emphasis on costumes); how to present the contradictions in the criticism. The structural issues are easier to fix, but not so easy in the framework of a FAC. I'm not not sure how much more help I can give, except to tell you to at least try to tighten the prose throughout. Still thinking about how to resolve these conflicts.
    Homeostasis07 I really think it would be helpful to get back some of the other editors who've struggled with this article in the past, because the previous editors are basically saying the same thing, but we've all been using different wording, if that makes sense? It would be really nice if we could fix it once and for all, but I think I'm out of my league. Victoria (tk) 21:53, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments and edits to the article, @Victoriaearle: they've been very helpful. With regards to the article's current structure, I've been following the MOS for Video Game Characters up until now, which I'm beginning to think is insufficient for FA (at least in its current format). I modelled the 'Appearances' section on Lightning (Final Fantasy)#Appearances (an FA), but definitely agree that it's somewhat of a misnomer for such a section to delve into plot details. I think Kain (Legacy of Kain) would be a better template to use. Or is there another character-specific MOS you think would be more beneficial? Over the past 15 months, I've tried to work with all of the users who've opposed this article, but your comments here have been by far the most informative and productive. Many of the other users have moved on, which is understandable considering FAC1 was way back in August 2017. I'm aware I still need to rectify several of the points you mentioned on September 15th, and will additionally try to amend the article using my own common sense during the next few days. Thanks again for your time and effort. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07, Aoba47, sorry for the delay in getting back here, but I was waiting for the work to be finished. I've undone the hatting and struck resolved points instead. Eventually I'll move things to the talk page but we're not quite at that point yet. Re unresolved points already mentioned, taking it from the top:

  • To repeat, procedural but because prominently mentioned in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates page, in my view it would be polite to drop a note directly on the talk pages of the primary contributors. If the coords disagree, they'll tell me. Ping Ian Rose & Laser brain
  • Prose - still needs work overall. Some specific examples (to emphasize, these are examples only)"
  • wordiness i.e. "A writer for The New York Times said the game series was intentionally designed to make players nervous, explaining that whichever character they chose would be "perpetually low on ammunition and prone to all sorts of attacks from the shadows. ... More troubling, the players couldn't shoot [enemies] unless they stood still themselves."[12] >> is the attribution needed?, can “A writer for New York Times” be eliminated? can this be reworded? i.e “The game series was designed to make players nervous, 'perpetually low on ammunition and prone to all sorts of attacks from the shadows', unable to shoot unless in danger while standing still"? If it's not rewritten at least please fix the pronoun discrepancy between "A writer" and the next sentence that begins with "They elaborated" ...
  • Please check the tenses throughout. When writing about literature, the norm is to use what's called the literary present (sorry, our article is crappy). What's the norm for video games? Please check other articles. The convention should be something along the lines that the game can be played right now in the present even though designed in the past so we'd write, “Jill is”, “players shoot enemies”. Past is used for something that happened in the past, i.,e "Mikami explained", and even trickier is that you have past-perfect, i.e "characters have been redesigned", i.,e the redesign happened in the past & has been ongoing. My advice would be to check with someone how to write the reception section; in my view if a game/film received good /bad/lukewarm reviews in the past it's prob ok to say "in 2000, such and such wrote", but it gets tricky when tying to each reviewer (a good argument to avoid that); the norm is to use the literary present, because we can read the review right now in the present.
  • Which brings me to the reception section that's still stuffed, i.e overly long, in my view. Is there any way to use summary style and not quote every single review, especially since the franchise has been been around for 25+ years? Converting to summary style would solve the quoting/attributing and I believe awkward grammar as well as making it easier to read.
  • Finally, sourcing: "comprehensive" is not satisfied by using all available sources, but rather identifying, finding, and leaning on the best available sources. I'm seeing significant progress but lower quality sources can be swapped for the higher quality secondary sources. Off the top of my head the best sources are MacCallum, Grimes, the New York Times, the Guardian.
  • Sorry, stopping, very tired. Please ask questions about anything that doesn't make sense. More later, Victoria (tk) 00:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the feedback @Victoriaearle: (BTW, as far as I'm aware, the pings don't work unless accompanied by a new signature—i.e., the 4 ~'s; if so... @Ian Rose: & @Laser brain:... I'd love some feedback at this point from either of you as to how best help the article get promoted). Re contacting all previous commentators, that's what I did prior to FAC4, which didn't help matters much: a few provided feedback, several voiced moral support with no real feedback, others ignored the messages I left on their talk pages altogether. Which was to be expected, quite frankly, since FAC1 occurred over 2 years ago. I'll leave some messages at previous-opposing user's talk pages once I feel I've made some progress on this latest commentary. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the delay, @Victoriaearle: won't bore you with the details. But I believe Aoba and I have resolved all of the remaining issues. And as far as I can see, from reading FAs Lightning and Tidus, 'Appearances' sections use literary present, the exception here being the descriptive sentence introducing it (Raccoon City's nuclear destruction). Regarding tense usage, past tense is used for definitives (Jill Valentine was introduced; was the first playable female, etc.) but literary present is used in 'Appearances' (with the exception of in-product flashbacks, where I believe past tense is appropriate). I feel confident in making all of the developmental details past tense, since RE7 (the last original game) used a faceless character from the first-person perspective... which was the most successful Capcom game in nearly 15 years, so I don't see Capcom making any character-specific RE games this side of 2030. Let us know what you think about the prose as it current stands. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was without internet over the weekend, fell behind, and won't get through this tonight. I made a few edits, but reverted myself because of tagging.

  • Basically the issue I still have is what I explained in this post.
  • I think the "Concept" section is still muddled and would prefer someone else take a look; or I simply need accept that I'm unable to review a popular culture article.
  • I believe she's referring to the fact that she said 3 weeks ago the 'Reception' section is "stuffed and for some reason Mikami's premise isn't even mentioned until that point", and that those details needed to be moved to 'Concept and design'. So since those details have been moved, now 'Concept and design' is "muddled". There's only so much one can do with the MOS for Video Game Characters, IMO. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. I think the important points are now all together; re Mikami's design, and how the subsequent re-designs changed the original character. The issue, for me, is that the it's not flowing well from one point to the next. That's what I meant by muddled - it's a term I use for my own articles when I have trouble getting a point just right. Sometimes, it takes time to shuffle things around until everything falls into place so it flows well, if that makes better sense? Anyway, will take another look tomorrow. I do think progress has been made since this version, when I first starting looking at it seriously. Sorry, but need to go now. Victoria (tk) 01:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not offended; hopefully, I did not cause any offense either. I was merely asking for clarification. I will read through the section more tomorrow when I get the chance and focus on building stronger transitions between the paragraphs. Thank you for your help so far, and I hope you have a wonderful rest of your night. Aoba47 (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure she was referring to me. ;) In which case I'd need to apologise. Those things I said I wouldn't "bore you with" have definitely impacted my mood these past few days (all related to my aforementioned dental work: which caused a gum infection, which has spread to my left ear canal, which is causing some horrible migraines). Started antibiotics today, so will hopefully be in a better mood tomorrow. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re the NYT section re low ammunition, I was thinking something more along the lines of this point, "Resident Evil 3: Nemesis offers an easy mode, but it's still difficult. You begin as Jill Valentine, a cop, but you'll eventually change characters. Jill's goal is to leave town, a process made especially difficult by a creature whose sole purpose is to kill all the members of the elite police team Jill belonged to. NYT Evil & repitition", which is more Jill-centered. But I can understand why you used the material you did. I'm just not sure it works well in the flow.
  • I don't particularly understand what you mean by quoting an entire paragraph from this article. What exactly could be paraphrased from this? That Nemesis has an "easy mode"? That's the only thing in that quote not currently included on the article using other sources. Carlos Oliviera; Jill's goal in RE3 is to escape Raccoon City before its nuclear destruction; Nemesis's "sole" task being to kill all remaining members of the RE1 team—this is already on the article, referenced to both this source and several of the academic ones. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still like someone like Czar, who raised the issues of the discrepancies to take a look, or to have Sarah who's put a lot of work into the article take a look.

Basically I need to think about it and try another run through. I'll try to get to it tomorrow. Victoria (tk) 00:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Homeostasis07 and Aoba47 just popping in to acknowledge that I've seen all of this. My sense is that we're making enough progress to justify continuing. I noted that Aoba made a number of edits last night but haven't had time to read through the article; will try again to get to it this evening. Also, Homeostasis, if sounds as if a few days rest would do you some good. I'm not in a rush, fwiw. Victoria (tk) 20:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Victoriaearle: Apologies for those edits. I was trying to test out a few ideas on how to best address some of the points raised above. I will refrain from making any further edits to the article to allow you (and anyone else) to read through the article in full and form a full understanding/assessment of it. I think it would be helpful for me to not look at the article for a day or two as some distance may be helpful so I can review everything again with a fresh perspective to catch any mistakes or awkward phrasing that I may be reading over. Again, apologies for the edits, and I will not be changing anything until I hear back from you. Take as much time as you need! I agree there is no reason to rush, and the focus should be on making the article as strong and cohesive as it can be. I hope you are having a wonderful start to your week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba47 don't apologize! I've just skimmed through and it's reading much better. I think you managed to unmuddle it (if that's a word), so nice work. I need perspective too, and I'm too tired at the moment to give it my full attention, so I'll give it another day or so in case either of you wants to make any additional tweaks. Then I'll read through top to bottom. Thanks, Victoria (tk) 23:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few more edits, mostly copy-editing at this point.

  • I wanted to point out this edit, because I was trying to avoid the "some" which begs for a clarification tag, so I checked and realized both are women; one a professor of digital media, the other a game designer & game journalist so I rephrased, but you might not like it & I don't mind if it gets tweaked. It did make me realize that in the post-Gamergate era we really should mention Anita Sarkeesian's comments which, I believe, did get coverage in secondary sources.
  • In this edit I reworded/copyedited but not entirely successfully and might have messed up the verb structure as you have it (I had "literary present" beaten into me and don't seem to be able to think any other way), so feel free to fix/reword/tweak.
  • For the record, I still think there's a bit too much emphasis on the many costumes; now that the article explains that redesigns & costumes are a staple of the franchise it gets a little repetitive reading about it, but I recognize the work that's been done during the FAC, so only mentioning at this point.
  • Just so the coords know, I've not looked at source formatting or images files.

Given the amount of work done and the significant progress I support at this point. I'm sure both of you will be happy to hear that! Thanks, btw for putting in the effort. Victoria (tk) 00:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the support and for your help in the review as a whole. I will research Sarkessian's comments further and see if there are any secondary sources. I am quite terrible with tenses so I completely understand. I knew at one point in my life what the correct tense was for literary analysis, but I have since gotten that quite muddled. I will also look into the parts about the costumes in the future. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support, Victoriaearle. As a user who had opposed during previous FACs, this means a lot. I believe I've rectified all remaining tensing issues. Also, I've reintroduced Anita Sarkeesian's commentary, although I'm not especially happy with the source quality (I've used the best I could find). I recall reading a paragraph of one of the secondary sources opening with "As per Sarkeesian", but remember thinking the paragraph didn't explain much. Will try to find again and hopefully rephrase what's there using that source. Thanks again. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from DAP

[edit]

There aren't many comments to add that haven't already been addressed. My only concerns with this article are the instances where A) an inline citation disrupts the flow and readability and B) a sentence lacks clarity because the source information has not been properly paraphrased/integrated.

  • "'In 2014, Shinji Mikami expressed his opposition to the sexual objectification of women in video games. In addition to not eroticizing female characters, he said he refused to portray women who were submissive to men and wrote female characters "who discover their independence as the game progresses, or who already know they are independent but have that tested against a series of challenges'", per B. This does a poor job of illustrating the connection between Valentine's persona and Mikami's vision of his female characters. Since it is pertinent information, however, you could say something like "Mikami's vision of Valentine reflected his desire to portray female characters that either sought independence, or have their already-found independence challenged in the story".
  • "she discovered the property was a façade for a biological warfare laboratory operated by the Umbrella Corporation and that its undead occupants are scientists who had been developing the T-virus mutagen", clunky. These are separate clauses, "she discovered the property was a façade for a biological warfare laboratory operated by the Umbrella Corporation, where".
  • "Mikami explained that Resident Evil 2 protagonist Claire Redfield was due to feature as the lead in the concurrently-produced Resident Evil – Code: Veronica (2000)", per A. Also repetitive since Mikami's name is already mentioned in the prior sentence.
  • I believe Mikami's name is used here because the previous sentence mentions both Mikami and the director for Nemesis, and the name is repeated to avoid any confusion or misinterpretation with the director. However, I can still make the adjustment if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Great work otherwise, and apologies for the late review! DAP 💅 01:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the suggestion, and there is no need to apologize. It is always important to get as many perspectives as possible on an article to get it in the best possible shape. I believe that I addressed your points, but please let me know if further revisions are necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 01:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

Just a placeholder to remind myself that image and source reviews are still to come and have been requested at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments

[edit]

I intended to begin a full source review but getting tripped up on some early issues:

  • I'm having trouble parsing your citation strategy. What is the purpose of the "Works cited" section when it doesn't include all the works you've cited? Is it meant to be just books? There seem to be things other than books in there, so I'm unsure what's going on.
  • From the best of my understanding, the "Works cited" section has the full citations to the book and article sources, and the "References" section has the page numbers for these sources and the web sources. Aoba47 (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Works cited" section is a complete list of the offline sources used on the article (novels, periodicals, official strategy guides containing descriptive content from character developers, academic papers, etc.); "References" contains all the online sources, while noting the page numbers of the offline sources using the SFN formatting. I'd like to move the only remaining periodical in 'References' (#56: 'Keeping the Nightmare Alive'), but you can't use the SFN formatting unless you have a cited author, which this article has neglected to do. Hopefully this has made things clearer. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't actually think Guinness is considered a reliable source for anything other than that they awarded someone with something. They're not well-known for being thorough in their research and their claims are often disputed. So I think you'll need to find a better source for Valentine being the first playable female character in the genre, and anything else you're using them for.
  • That is a good point. After doing more research on the subject, I do not believe the "the first playable female character in the genre" claim is correct. The 1992 survival horror game Alone in the Dark has a playable female character (Emily Hartwood) four years before Valentine was playable in Resident Evil. I am going to remove the claim from the article, but I would also like to get Homeostasis07's opinion. Given Alone in the Dark, I think it is safe to say that this is false. Aoba47 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 114... I find this statement and its collection of citations troubling. The prose indicates causation, but none of those sources support that claim. And why are those four examples particularly notable or relevant? They seem like mostly fluff pieces. Also, the sentence contains a that/which error.
  • Understandable. Would it be better to change that sentence to something like the following: (Valentine, however, has been included on lists that rank characters on their sex appeal.)? It would remove the causation concern in favor of a blanket statement that Valentine has received attention from media outlets based on her perceived sex appeal. I am hesitant about removing the sentence and citations altogether as Valentine has received quite a bit of focus for this perceived sex appeal so I am trying to think of a way to better represent that information. Aoba47 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally I'd prefer to see one or two strong secondary source summarizing the phenomenon, rather than writing that she got placed on a bunch of lists of sexy video game characters and providing a handful of examples. --Laser brain (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. Homeostasis07 has a better grasp on the sources (and whether or not there are stronger secondary sources that could replace the ones in question in the suggested way) so I will leave that up to him. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I want to find a secondary source and re-add the information, I've just spent another 3 hours scouring and can't find anything connecting the sentiment with a high-quality (secondary) reference. All I found was this, which isn't secondary and doesn't specifically address the issue at hand. Let me know if this is an issue for promotion and I'll search again tomorrow (though I'm not hopeful I can find anything: I've re-read all the secondary sources currently included on the article, as well as a bunch of others). Or would it be acceptable to reintroduce Aoba's more neutral wording above, sourced with the most high-quality reference I'd previously removed? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find a secondary source confirming that Valentine has appeared on lists of characters based on their sex appeal, but I have found the following which I think could be used instead to make an altogether more substantial point: Geek Heroines: An Encyclopedia of Female Heroes in Popular Culture by Karen M. Walsh, page 172: "Despite his [character creator Shinji Mikami's] anti-oversexualized female character beliefs, the Jill Valentine costume for Resident Evil 3 overtly deviated from her previous clothing. The form-fitting tube top under-mined the previous iteration's utilitarianism. However, by her next incorporation in the series, the art had reverted to a more militaristic style." This quote provides causation for the discrepancy in the character's sudden shift in appearance, and highlights how such a difference is notable with regard to Mikami's original iteration of the character. I believe the whole paragraph can be recast using this new source, which I've done in my sandbox. Let me know if you're satisfied with my rewrite there, and I'll transfer to the article. transferred to the article. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to check with a couple library databases tomorrow and see if I can find something. I'm concerned that we'll be missing a key point just because we can't find the appropriate sources for it. This would create a comprehensiveness issue. --Laser brain (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I didn't really find anything worthwhile. I'll try to wrap up the source review soon so we can assess whether this is ready for promotion. I'll be recusing since I've left more in-depth comments, so Ian Rose, I'll ask you to look at this in a couple days. --Laser brain (talk) 13:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the help! I have also tried to do some further research on the matter and was creative with my search terms, but I could not find anything really concrete or worthwhile either. I appreciate your help with the source review as it has helped to improve the article a lot. Hope you are doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back with more in the coming days. --Laser brain (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe that I have corrected this. The difference was due to how certain sources use sfn and others use harvnb. The sfn citation/coding seems to automatically add the terminal period while the harvnb does not. I have manually added the period for the harvnb sources for consistency. I would encourage you to look through the citations again to make sure I caught everything though. Aoba47 (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I don't really care for your citation system on this article. I find it confusing. But, me personally liking it is not a requirement for FA. I am satisfied that the sources are all in order now. --Laser brain (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for sorting this out while I was away, Aoba. To be clear, the article primilarly uses the SFN formatting for book/academic/offline references (with page numbers included). However, SFN does not allow the usage of <ref name="X"/> so, in certain circumstances when a single page number is cited for different content over different sections, I've used HARVNB instead, which does allow <ref name="X"/>. Hope this has made things clearer. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 13 November 2019 [24].

Baby Driver

[edit]
Nominator(s): DAP (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Edgar Wright's 2017 action film Baby Driver, starring Ansel Elgort as a young (hence the title), musically driven getaway driver seeking freedom from heisting with his lover Debora (a diner waitress played by Lily James). It is a landmark film in Wright's catalog for its artistic direction and box office success, by far his biggest hit to date. It is a relatively new good article, and after a copyedit and several more months of revisions, I believe this article satisfies the FA criteria. Looking forward to any constructive feedback. DAP 💅 22:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • I think ALT text would be helpful for the infobox image.
    • Added. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Are the references in the infobox necessary? I would imagine that this information should be present and sourced in the body of the article. I have not personally seen references used in a film's infobox like this; I am not saying it is incorrect, but I just thought it was something worth discussion.
    • Not per se. Admittedly I left the references intact for no particular reason. I can remove them if necessary. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I do not have an issue with it, but I just wanted to raise it to your attention. I would personally remove it, but you could also wait for other editors' comments as they may disagree with me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "getaway driver" is wikilinked twice in the body of the article. "Atlanta" is also wikilinked multiple times in the body of the article.
    • Revised. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You currently wikilink "Edgar Wright" in this sentence "Baby Driver is a longtime passion project Edgar Wright had been developing since 1995", although Wright is mentioned in a previous sentence in the "Cast" section. Here is the sentence with Wright's first appearance: "Wright and the producers at Working Title Films began contemplating the lead role well before they obtained funding for Baby Driver.". The wikilink should be moved up to the first instance and Wright's full name should be used for the first time he is mentioned in the body of the article.
    • Revised. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a hidden note that Eiza González is credited without the diacritic, but the diacritic (I am assuming it is the one over the a in González) is used in the body of the article.
    • Revised for consistency. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Working Title Films" is wikilinked twice in the article.
    • Revised. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe the phrase "time frame" should be two words in this sentence (With the limited timeframe, the filmmakers rehearsed for only an hour before they began filming in early morning.).
    • Revised. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a question about this part (Another principal topic of discussion among critics has been Baby Driver's treatment of race). The article says race was a "principal" point discussed by critics, but there is only one source cited so the claim seems unsupported. Even though there are two critics (David Hollingshead and Jane Hu), they are tied to one article. In fact, one of the lines in the source is "and am actually surprised that no one has discussed race much vis-a-vis the film", which suggests that the film's treatment of race was rather overlooked by a majority of critics. The issue of race is an important thing to keep in the article, but I do not believe it was as prominently featured in critical commentary as the sentence in question makes it sound.
    • Revised. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a question about the final paragraph of the "Critical response" subsection. I have frequently seen the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores used as an opening paragraph for this type of section; I am assuming it is done this way as these sites introduce a general overview on how a film was critically received before breaking the criticism down further. Why have this part as a final paragraph? I am not saying it is wrong, but I was just curious about it.
    • This was a compromise I settled with to avoid an editing despite with another user, to deemphasize the metadata while maintaining standard practice. Truth be told, I think metadata is redundant, and the summary of reviews in verbal form makes for a much more engaging reading experience. Again, I'll be happy to remove that if necessary. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Understandable, and thank you for the explanation. I can understand the use of the Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic data as a way of understanding a film's reception at a glance; however, there are issues with both sites and I can understand not wanting to use either. I personally think that both should be kept in the article, but I do not have an issue with it being in the final paragraph. I think it is a fair compromise. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe this sentence, "Known in the music industry for his work with Sia, Arcade Fire, and other artists, Baby Driver is Heffington's first foray into film", is grammatically correct. The beginning, dependent phrase (Known in the music industry for his work with Sia, Arcade Fire, and other artists) should be referring to the noun of the next, independent phrase. I do not think Baby Driver is "Known in the music industry for his work with Sia, Arcade Fire, and other artists". Rather, I think you mean "Heffington" instead so the sentence would have to be adjusted accordingly.
    • Revised DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Awesome work with the article. I remember hearing a rather large buzz about this film when it was first released so it is cool to read more about it. I have personally not seen it, because it is just personally not in my preferred genre/wheelhouse of films, but I learned a lot from reading this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the feedback! I believe I have addressed your concerns (thus far). Let me know what you think. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinging reviewers from my last FAC: Brandt Luke Zorn, Gertanis, Wehwalt, Jo-Jo Eumerus, would you guys mind taking a took if or when you have the time? DAP 💅 01:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Homeostasis07

[edit]

Sorry about the delay. I wanted to write something here several days ago, but my own FAN – and real-life stuff – got in the way. Here are my comments:

Lead

  • Not sure "heisting" is the most appropriate term here. For one, I've never seen "heist" in the gerund form before (heisting). Something like "It stars Ansel Elgort as a young, musically driven getaway driver seeking freedom from a life of crime with his lover Debora (Lily James)." might be better.
  • Every paragraph in this section begins with Baby Driver. What about mixing it up by beginning the second paragraph with "The film"?
  • "He devised the film's blueprint well into his youth, but the experience helming his early projects shaped his ambitions for Baby Driver." → I don't really know what this is supposed to mean. This seems to be a reference to the point in 'Development' about his music video for Mint Royale, so maybe something like "He had been devising the film's premise since his youth, with his later experience helming other projects helping to shape his ambitions for Baby Driver."
  • Wright later revised the film's setting to Atlanta in the script; preserving the city's ethos then became an important aspect of the storytelling. → Wright later revised the film's setting to Atlanta, and chose to incorporate the scenery and culture of that city into the story; this became an important aspect of the script.

Plot, Cast and Development

  • Nothing I'd change here.

Filming

Visual effects

  • I don't care either way, but thought I should point out here that there's a user going around removing any instance of comprised from every featured/good article. If you don't want them doing that, I'd suggest changing to "Their work for the film consisted of 430 shots," but I don't mind either way. I'd also like to point out that, after watching the film, you've done an amazing job of making this article as comprehensive as possible; those descriptions of the making of key scenes are riveting, and brilliantly written.

Stunts and choreography

  • No complaints here.

Sound design

  • Slater said, "Bradley showed me to work musically [...] How a gunshot works with a kick drum, but not too obviously. For every layer that happens musically, have another layer that happens non-musically so that you perceive it only some of the time." → I don't like the first part of this quote. I had to read the source to try and find context, but couldn't find any. "Bradley showed me to work musically" just doesn't make sense, grammatically. I'd consider paraphrasing, or removing it, since it doesn't add much to the article.

Music

  • No complaints.

Themes

  • Nice use of academic criticism. Also goes to comprehensiveness. Nothing to complain about here.

Release and Reception

  • No complaints.

Box office

Critical response

Otherwise, this is a fine article, and I'll be happy to support once these points have been fixed. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Homeostasis07, Thanks for the feedback, and no worries about the delay! I believe I’ve addressed all of your concerns. Let me know what you think. DAP 💅 16:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the changes you've made, and have no problem providing my support for this article. Good luck with the nomination. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 21:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Pinging FA coordinators for source and image reviews. DAP 💅 16:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (passed)

[edit]

I hope this helps. Aoba47 (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, apologies for the late response; my professional life is consuming most of my free time. I felt the few publicity shots did not service Baby Driver's color symbolism well, so I replaced the last image with a screenshot of a video essay which (in my opinion) does a much better job of illustrating that aspect of the film. Let me know what you think, and MANY thanks for initiating the image review! DAP 💅 19:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from FrB.TG

[edit]

I'll look at it later today. FrB.TG (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Elgort, John Boyega, and Logan Lerman were among a raft of potential candidates considered for star billing.[7][8] The actor auditioned" - it's not wise to use "the actor" right after when you have mentioned three actors.
  • "Wright's repeated listening to Orange (1994), the then-recently released fourth studio album by the Jon Spencer Blues Explosion," I think this should be simply "the fourth studio album by Jon Spencer Blues Explosion" without "then-recently released". This is just a suggestion and hence you can ignore it.
  • "The release of Shaun of the Dead the following" - this should probably be made clear that Wight directed Shaun of the Dead.
  • "The latest figures show that 595,111 copies have been sold." MOS:CURRENT
  • This is not a criticism, quite the opposite actually. I especially like the "Critical reception" section which you have arranged thematically instead of "A said this", "B said this". Kudos!

Very well-written and comprehensive. I expect to support it once my relatively minor concerns are addressed. I myself currently have an FAC for Leonardo DiCaprio. I would appreciate your input there. (This is not supposed to be a quid pro quo though so review it only if you feel like it.) FrB.TG (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I believe I’ve addressed all of your concerns. I’ll also take a look at your FAC since I have a little bit more free time over the next week. Cheers! DAP 💅 02:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent work. FrB.TG (talk) 07:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Coordinator notes

[edit]

@DAP388: I'm not satisfied that the loop has been closed on all of the above sourcing concerns. --Laser brain (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: could I get another run through please? DAP 💅 14:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DAP388: What is the status on this? --Laser brain (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It should be good to go. @Nikkimaria: thoughts? DAP 💅 07:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just the last point is still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, done. Not sure why it took me that long to spot it. DAP 💅 12:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 November 2019 [25].

Inter-Allied Women's Conference

[edit]
Nominator(s): SusunW (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the women's conference which paralleled the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. Because the French records of the conference hosts were stolen by the Nazis, scholarship on the conference did not emerge until the 21st century. When taken to GA, it was suggested by Gog the Mild to prepare the article for FA status and as a preliminary phase to send it for a Class A review. Both GA and Class A reviews passed and the article significantly improved during the process. In preparing it for a FA nomination, consultation with Gog and Ipigott, both veterans of the process were sought. In the final stage, the list of participants was removed and converted to prose within the article and 4 additional photographs were located and added from those reviewed during the Class A process.

(Note, this is my first FA nomination, so I am not very sure how the process works. Should anyone need access to the materials provided to me by professors Cobble and Siegel, I can e-mail them upon request.) SusunW (talk) 14:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best to actually review this, but SusunW, It's great to see you here! Vanamonde (Talk) 15:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

[edit]

Sticking my flag here, intending to look at this in a few days. I've read the first couple of sections already and I must say, this is very good. CassiantoTalk 20:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

Great to see this here, SusunW! I remember how FAC can be a bit intimidating for first-timers. Although I looked this over at Milhist ACR, I have some more comments:

Nice to see you as well Peacemaker67. Thanks for your comments. SusunW (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link League of Nations (at first mention, and rm link from the second mention), Human trafficking and Suffrage in the lead
done SusunW (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • also in the lead, "and the transformation of education to include the humanitarian rights of all persons in each nation." could do with some improvement, as I am unsure what it means. I'm not sure it is a clear reflection of the proposals mentioned in the body.
This is a tough thing to summarize further, Gog and I worked on it, but please feel free to make a suggestion. In the body we have: "The women's final point was that provisions should be made to ensure that internationally education provided training on civilisation and the obligations of citizenship, with a focus on respecting the humanity, cultures, and human rights of all citizens of each nation." Basically, they wanted the League of Nations to transform education and internationalize it so that young people were taught about general culture, history, and the moral and societal development of each nation to instill "in each individual conscience the sense of human solidarity, and the respect due to the liberties and rights of each nation". (Oldfield, p 106) So in essence, they wanted, but didn't say so in so many words, anthropology, sociology, political science, theology studies, and global news rolled into basic education studies so students would develop empathy for other people and cultures. SusunW (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to the President of the United States Woodrow Wilson"
done SusunW (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is a bit of a chronological hiccup in the Background section. I think the info about the French delegation to Wilson should follow the response to the letter of 25 January, then go on with the Labour and Socialist International Conference.
Okay, I moved February 1 up and reworked the section. SusunW (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nine days later, when the conference opened" which conference, the parallel conference or the peace conference itself, it isn't immediately clear. In general, I think this section would benefit from some re-organisation along chronological lines to make things clearer.
See above. I moved 10 February to "Actions" section and hopefully rearranged it to flow better. SusunW (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • daily dispatches for Tthe Chicago Tribune Foreign News Service
done SusunW (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest something like "On 11 February, a delegation led by chair Millicent Fawcett, a leader in the British suffrage movement and president of the National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, called on Wilson. The delegation included... The delegation asked if a Women's Commission could be included in the Peace Conference to address the concerns of women and children. At the meeting Wilson suggested, that instead of having a Women's Commission included in the conference, that the male diplomats on the commission form a Women's Commission to which the Inter-Allied Women's Conference could serve as advisers." You just need to re-state what commission the men were on. The League of Nations Commission? Or is it the Council of Ten?
We had this originally that way, but thought that by the time one got through the list of delegates the idea of the meeting was lost. I'll flip it again. At this point, they were speaking only to Wilson, at his lodging (sometimes it is called the Hôtel Murat, other times the Villa Murat). There was no men's commission. He suggested creating one from the delegates of the peace conference. Changed text from "male diplomats on the commission" to "male diplomats from the peace conference". SusunW (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "and delegates from Belgium, England, France, Italy, and possibly Australia.[Notes 2]"
done SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • when first mentioning Poincaré, give his first name, then refer to him just as Poincaré thereafter
done SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "suffragists testified" were all these women suffragists?
yes. (well except maybe the Polish woman, who I cannot figure out who was). Remember that they invited suffragists from all Allied Nations, thus, it I think can logically be assumed the people who responded were suffragists. SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comma after Cécile Brunschvicg
done SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Pacifism
done SusunW (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what might be missing is a short explanation of the structure of the Peace Conference and the subsidiary commissions. Doesn't need to be too long.
I'm not sure how that would have fit into this section, so I wrote a paragraph "Though initially the Peace Conference organizers ..." in the "Background" section. SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Child labour, Parental leave (for maternity pay) and Vocational education (for trade education)
done SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The resolutions the women's conference delegates presented to the chair of the Labour Commission..."
done SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • when referring to delegates, make sure you specify delegates to which conference or commission
I think I have got all these, but if not, let me know. SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest inserting subsection headers in the Actions section for the Labour Commission and League of Nations Commission to break up the section
Maybe instead, since they spent February just asking to be heard, dates are better separators? If you don't concur, advise. SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • link child marriage, prostitution, human trafficking
done SusunW (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "provisions should be made to ensure that internationally education provided training on civilisation" needs some sort of modifier, doesn't read right.
changed to "internationally, basic" for more information see above response to your 2nd query. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • where someone has been mentioned with their full name, thereafter they should be referred to just using their family name, per MOS:FAMILYNAME unless there is more than one person in the article with the same family name.
Okay, again, I think I got all these, but if I missed any, let me know. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, down to Aftermath. Will have a look at the rest tomorrow. This is a great article on a very important subject, well done for developing it to this point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your review Peacemaker67. I think I have addressed your queries, though some discussion may still be required. I really do appreciate your review(s), which have certainly improved the article. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it was a great read and I learned a lot. I will read through again over the next day and give you my thoughts on the changes you have made. My only remaining comment is that some work is needed on the gallery of Conference participants. I have two screens, and even on the biggest one, some of the names wrap onto a following line. They should be restrained to only have each name on a single line. I don't work much with galleries, so I'm not sure of the solution, but perhaps you could use a different template, or you could ask at Template talk:Gallery for some help? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peacemaker. I have just (re)checked the gallery on four devices and six screens and it displays fine every time. Is there any chance that you could email me a screenshot so I can see what the problem is? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gog the Mild, I think we all know I have no idea about technical stuff. I appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like it is just me. Not to worry. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have had another read through, and all my comments have been addressed. Well done on this. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Peacemaker67 It has been a pleasure to improve the article with you. SusunW (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Overall this is excellent. A few suggested tweaks:

Lead
  • "their efforts were significant in that they marked the first time" -> " their efforts were the first time ..."?
done SusunW (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They were also successful": don't need the "also"
done SusunW (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • You have organisations and organizers. (Organis~ has the majority over organiz~)
It was decided at GA phase that since the Paris Peace Conference was written in British English (but not Oxford, I forget which dictionary, maybe Collins?) this article should be as well. Thus, I always have to have someone follow behind and "Britishize" the English. Thanks for that. done SusunW (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though initially the Peace Conference organizers": It took me 3 or 4 reads of this to understand it. Perhaps a rephrasing along the following lines or similar may help: "Although the Peace Conference organisers had planned to make the plenary sessions key to framing the treaties, the need for secrecy and to quickly resolve terms prevented the public sessions from doing so"?
done SusunW (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that labour issues": as this is written in BrEng, this does jar for me: "employment issues" may be better, but I won't push the point if you demur.
done SusunW (talk) 13:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as Armenia, Belgium, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, and South Africa": I'm not sure we need to link all these (per WP:OVERLINKING). If there is a good reason, then Great Britain, France and Italy were all named above, where the links should have been. (I know they are all technically different legal entities than the current modern states, but unless it makes a difference to how they acted and unless it's identified as being the former entity, I'm not sure the link is needed). Ditto Greece and Serbia in the section below
There was a big debate at the class A review about what should be linked. As you can see from the discussion, it was felt that the links gave historical context. I have moved the links on the UK, France and Italy, to be less of a sea of blue. Does that help? SusunW (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the conclusion, but as there is a consensus, I'll not object. I think most people will acknowledge that countries were different, but as the names are largely the same, the nuance of a former legal entity compared to the present day will be lost on pretty much everyone. (In other words, it's fine to leave them as they are, but I'll harrumph about it, then forget it). - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:) Thank you for your honesty. It is often difficult to harmonize many varying views. SusunW (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[25][26][27][28]" You could think of using citation bundling to avoid the string of links – I have a rule of thumb of three as a maximum)
The problem to my mind with the instructions on bundling is that the citations end up as a note. Since these are not the same thing, I have zero idea how to make them not appear as a note. All four are necessary as Belgium, France, Italy, Poland, South Africa, UK, US appear in the The Star Tribune; Siegel does not list Poland but does list New Zealand; Oldfield is the only source listing Armenia; and Andrews is the only source listing Romania. If you have another solution, I'll gladly try it, but I stress again, I am not a coder and have very little skill with wp technology. SusunW (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it for you here - it's a trick that isn't used too often (mostly because it's a little fiddly), but it can be useful. If you really don't like it, then remove it, but I find it's easier for readers who don't want to get smacked round the head by long strings of blue links! - SchroCat (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Now I've learned a new citation skill. SusunW (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
February
  • "Though their conference did not begin until February, when they arrived in Paris, the women immediately got to work" I'm not sure what this is adding. The previous sentence says their conference was "mid-February to mid-April", the next sentence says the conference opened on 10 February. This middle sentence seems superfluous – or I've missed the point of what it is trying to say.
Removed it. done SusunW (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe tweak the image caption to read "Millicent Fawcett in 1913"?
The problem to my mind with adding a date is that for consistency then all the photographs would need a date, which in some cases is impossible to determine. We know when they were published, but not necessarily when they were taken. SusunW (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Note 2) "Australian delegate[55] Neither": full stop needed
done SusunW (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several uses of the terms "United States" and "United Kingdom": after the first use they can be trimmed to US and UK (unless in a formal title). You also use United Kingdom, Great Britain, England and Scotland in various places: best to pick one for all.
Having done many GAs, I have been advised numerous times to avoid acronyms, as it forces the reader who is unfamiliar to have to go back and find the original meaning. (I lean that way as well, as I often have no earthly idea what people who speak in wiki acronyms are referring to.) Far clearer to my mind to spell it out. I have (tried to) adhere to what the sources called the countries they were representing, which is why there are variances. It seems to me a more specific, rather than a broad general term is contextually more helpful, but veering too far from the sources is also not preferred. SusunW (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the UK and US are sufficiently well known to allow the shortened form. In terms of the locations for the UK, I think we're in danger of being too specific for a couple and not consistent in picking one name for all and sticking to it (and that includes England and Scotland - Lady Aberdeen, for example was born in London, so I'm not sure we can call her Scottish). Again, consistency is key, and I think readers would be best served with UK throughout. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've changed them all, I think, to US and UK. SusunW (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same sort of thing for the "National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies": the two mentions after the first can be as "NUWSS".
See above. SusunW (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll have a few other reviewers pointing to this and the US/UK for changing too. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
March
  • "In all,": Not needed – just begin the sentence as "The women's conference delegates"
done SusunW (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't the final sentence of this section repeat the essence of the final sentence of the February section, or is there a difference I've missed?
I think you must mean the last parts of March and April? (I see nothing in the February section that seems similar). To my mind, granting them approval and actually having it written in the Covenant of the League of Nations are two different things. Lots of things were promised with the creation of the League, but implementing is far different. SusunW (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
I am going to assume based on your comment above that we are okay with the links, but have unpiped Germany. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Participants
  • I'm not convinced that the gallery of images meets WP:GALLERY guidelines. I expected that the section titled "participants" would list the attendees, rather than just be a selection of images of some of the attendees. I won't oppose over it, as I suspect the consensus will be against me on its inclusion, but it's worth keeping the comment in mind if others also disagree with the inclusion.
As I said in the introduction to this nomination, initially the participants were simply a list of names, but after discussion with Gog and Ian, it was felt that they should be incorporated as prose within the text. Thus, there is no duplication here with a list of the participants. At the good article stage, the photographs were presented as a banner, but it was pointed out that that created difficulties with the photographs overlapping the text when viewed on mobile applications. To prevent that issue, they were converted to a gallery. If you would like, the section can be renamed to "Gallery of participants". SusunW (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its not necessarily that, I just don't think the gallery explains anything to the reader – which is the primary aim of images. And, as it doesn't explain anything, it probably fails WP:GALLERY. As I said above, however, I won't oppose over it, but it's worth bearing in mind if others also complain about it. - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • You shouldn't include countries (eg. "Cheltenham, England": "Cheltenham, Gloucestershire" will suffice; just "London", rather than "London, England" and "Milton Park, Abingdon-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom" just needs to be "Abingdon, Oxfordshire" – ditto for all the other countries.
I am not trying to be argumentative and am genuinely asking if there is a rule about this. I typically follow what the sourcing says. How am I to know that Abingdon, Oxforshire is preferred; or Cheltenham, Gloucestershire? If there is no country, I typically list it because it gives context (and for me, an idea of whether or not I am likely to have access to it). It seems to me that this may be a personal preference (and is similar to that frustrating bot that is constantly removing URLs if there is a DOI. I live in Mexico and having a DOI to a paywalled article or blocked site is not helpful to me. If I input a URL it is because it is accessible for people to read the entirety.) I am not inflexible and will change it if need be, but I would like to understand why this is preferred. SusunW (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look through the examples at Wikipedia:Citation templates, or pick a selection of FAs to look through to see how they do it. I've not seen that many articles that include the country, and when they are, it tends to be an American that lists every other country except the US - that's not a solid basis for an international encyclopaedia, and consistency of approach is necessary at FA. The article has "Boston, Massachusetts" and "Chicago, Illinois" without the need for USA, and so it should be true of Paris and London or Abingdon, Oxfordshire. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through all the refs and removed the countries, I think. It makes no sense to me, but it isn't a point I am going to argue. (Besides which, going through them, I see that awful bot I referred to above has replaced links with DOI and others with links that were not where I got them, i.e. archive.org as opposed to project Muse.) Such is life, as you said above, I am not going to lose sleep over it and after grousing about US/UK-centric oddities, will forget about it. SusunW (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a bit long, but these are all rather nit-picky points in an excellent article, and I look forward to being able to support shortly. – SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat Thank you very much for your comments. I appreciate the time you took to improve the article and am very grateful that you taught me a new skill. I am not sure if I have adequately resolved all of your comments. Please advise of next steps. SusunW (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Another read through, and I'm happy to support. You should bear in mind the points above where we disagree, and if other reviewers also point to it as a problem, you should think about taking action. An excellent article and worthy of the FA star. - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you SchroCat I truly appreciate your review. It's been a pleasure to make your acquaintance and work with you. SusunW (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Rosiestep

[edit]

Support by GMG

[edit]

Placeholder. GMGtalk 21:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I indicated on Susan's talk page, I've already reviewed the images, and the only ones I'm not comfortable giving the green light to (no pun intended) are three that depend on a non-renewed copyright rationale ([26], [27], [28]). It's not that these files are problematic in particular, but just that I'm not comfortable with these types of rationales, and so I chose long ago to simply avoid them as a matter of principle. Maybe @Alexis Jazz: would extend us the good fortune of looking them over. GMGtalk 13:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GreenMeansGo. I appreciate your reviewing the photographs and knowing another expert to go to. It takes a village ;) SusunW (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenMeansGo: Clindberg is way better at renewals. All three are from 1929-1933 newspapers. Those old newspapers never registered copyright IIRC, so if the photos were made by journalists/photographers who work for the newspaper they would be fine. (but.. were they?) - Alexis Jazz 15:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that UPenn has said that no daily newspapers from outside New York were renewed prior to 1946 issues. Their Oakland Tribune page has certain contributions renewed, but no whole issues, and the source newspaper says specifically that they are "Tribune photos". So that one seems to be OK. The third one of Brunschvicg, probably remove. The original source appears to be here, with a crop published in the U.S. newspaper. The original is by Thérèse Bonney (died 1978) and was taken 29 May, 1926. Bonney was an American, but sounds like she lived in Paris from 1919 or so for the rest of her life (though travelled as a photojournalist). She donated a bunch of her stuff to University of California Berkeley (her alma mater) among other places, and it seems as though that is the source of the original upload -- so publication history is tough. We do show the crop from a 1929 U.S. newspaper, but it's obviously not by their staff, and the story was on a French delegation to a conference in Berlin, so they probably obtained the photo from elsewhere, but not sure where. The French copyright will last until 2049. The U.S. copyright would have expired most likely at some point, but if first published in France (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) would have been restored in 1996 by the URAA and would expire again in 2022. But if it was originally published in the U.S., it's probably fine (as the renewal research shows). Not sure we know enough to keep it -- if country of origin is France, it's not OK. The second one of Valentine Thomson seems to come from an AP story marked "Paris" with no explicit photo credit. If that is the case, an AP photo, the lack of renewal of any one newspaper is meaningless. Only the Associated Press would have standing to renew. While it probably was not renewed, it could have been included in a yearly compilation book or something, so it's harder to search for. The searches don't mention looking for Associated Press. That one may be hard, even if the odds are it is OK. It could also be an existing foreign photo, but without any evidence I guess we should assume it's an AP-owned photo. It may be OK, but may be best to search for AP as well for those years. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clindberg, thank you for your review. I note here that the research on Bonney's photo for the Class A Review, wherein Nikkimaria accepted only the version published in the Dayton Herald as in the PD only in the US. Thus, it was uploaded en.wp only, i.e. it is not in commons. I literally examined hundreds of articles about Brunschvicg in French newspapers and found no photographs of her at all, except the image from the Le Petit journal illustré, which is still under copyright in France. As for Thomson, I just did an advanced search with the Associated Press as claimant, for the keyword Valentine Thomson and received "Your search found no results". The same results for AP as claimant and Thomson as a personal name, for AP as an organization and Thomson as a keyword and personal name and Valentine Thompson as a keyword and personal name. I will update the commons information directly. Can you advise of next steps? SusunW (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was unaware of the earlier research. If the Bonney photo was indeed first published in that newspaper in 1929, then it's fine (or at least that crop is). That just felt unlikely though for it to be first published in that newspaper, especially coming from someone who did at least later sell her photos and was living in France and of a French subject. If it was available from a photo agency there, then it may have been "published" when made available by the photo agency, not necessarily when it showed up in print. But tracking down that information is probably impossible. In looking further, it seems as though With the Women of Today or With Women of Today was a byline by a Mrs. Lillian Campbell that shows up in a number of U.S. newspapers across the country, so it was probably published in many newspapers that week, not just the Dayton Herald. Can't find much other information. But, that does make it more possible that a generally national author may have obtained that photo privately from the photographer (or from Brunschvicg herself). Given that it was not widely circulated per your other research, I guess the best available info is that the 1929 version was the first publication, so it's reasonable to go with that. There would need to be a renewal in 1957 in that case for copyright to still exist. If someone can come up with further information, it could be re-evaluated then -- if an earlier French publication can be determined, the URAA would have restored the U.S. copyright regardless of the lack of renewal. But it wouldn't be valid many more years, either.
For the Thomson one, the newspaper article says it came from the Paris AP office, and was talking about an upcoming trip in a few days -- so the photo was not taken in the U.S., but probably was taken in France prior to the trip. Still, it could have been first published in the U.S. (or at least simultaneously). You are correct, I don't see "Associated Press" in 1960 or 1961 renewals volumes for either books or periodicals. They registered some new material but don't see any that was renewed. And even if France is the country of origin, for an anonymous photo, it would have been expired on the URAA date (at the time their term was 50 years from publication, possibly with the 8-year extension for WWII). OK, that one is probably fine either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clindberg, I honestly cannot say how much I appreciate your help, and only wish I had known of your expertise when the previous review was on-going. (I am hoping I may call on you from time to time when these types of issues come up, as I find it often requires talking through.) I also know that as you were pinged in blindly, there was no way you could have known of the previous work done on Bonney/Brunschvicg, thus why I added the link. You have pretty much summed up my thoughts, significant research has been done to investigate the copyright (by various people). It appears to meet the criteria for use, but if later new information comes to light, that can always be revised and/or the photo removed. SusunW (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GreenMeansGo I truly appreciate our collaborations on WP. (Note, 2 us no a.) SusunW (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hah. My bad. Force of habit. GMGtalk 03:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty used to it, ;) no worries at all. SusunW (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Dr. Blofeld

[edit]

Looks like this has already been well-reviewed and meets FA criteria. Great job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments

[edit]

Looks like we are almost over the finish line, pending an image review and source review for formatting/reliability plus the normal spot-check for any potential close paraphrasing or verifiability issues. --Laser brain (talk) 01:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Laser brain, photo review is ongoing above and hopefully will soon be completed. I have asked a couple of people about the source review, (though I admit I have no idea what I am asking them to do, or the time involved). Both indicated that they are swamped with real life stuff right now, so I am being patient. SusunW (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: I did a source review when I assessed this at GAN. I also did the source review for ACR. I would be prepared todo the - full, first timer's - source review here. However, I copy edited a fair bit both pre-ACR and pre-FAC. I have also offered some general advice and encouragement along the way. So you may feel that I am a bit close to it to provide a review. (I have deliberately not offered a general review at this stage.) However, outside of GAN and ACR I have not given any input on the sourcing.
I would appreciate your giving either a thumbs up or down on my doing the source review. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: If you'd have time to do the spot-check, that would be great! It doesn't have to be every source. I usually just grab and handful and if they all check out, no further work is needed. --Laser brain (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]
  • Where a source is a journal article, you need to give an identifier (an ISSN, JSTOR or similar - a kind of ISBN for journal articles). WorldCat is your friend for this. See here for the ISSN of the first I noticed, Cobble. (Scroll down for the ISSN: 0021-8723.) Note how both have been given for Finch; although only one is necessary.
  • Logan: the title should be in title case.
  • And Naldi
  • And Wiltsher
  • Likewise the translated, but not the original, title of Morant.
  • And Offen (2005)
  • Seigal is wrongly formatted. You need to use cite book and use "|chapter=" for the work.

Just the above minor bits and pieces.

Gog the Mild I have fixed all of these except Siegel. To my understanding this is not a chapter of the book, which I do not have. It was a paper delivered at a conference. Another editor found the link to the conference and try as we might, we were unable to find links to either Cobble or Siegel's presentations. I boldly wrote to them and asked if they would provide them. Cobble sent me the 3 published articles. Siegel agreed to send me her paper if I would note that it was excerpted from her book. When I agreed to do that, she sent me the paper. I have no idea how else I could cite the reference to adhere to our agreement and the fact that it did not come directly from the book, but from a paper presented at a conference. (I have actually ordered the book, but as the last book I ordered took 9 months to reach me here, I do not expect that I will receive it until sometime next year.) SusunW (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. If I understand you correctly, you have put yourself in a spot by promising to note that a conference paper was excerpted from a book, when, strictly, you don't actually know that it is. I now remember this coming up before. OK; the rules on formatting exist to serve a purpose, and this seems like a sound case for an exemption. Just the two spot check queries left. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be happy to e-mail you the paper if need be. SusunW (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but not needed. All good.
Spot check
  • I did a certain amount of spot checking at both GAN and ACR. I shall now go through more thoroughly. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 103: Fine.
  • Cite 1: Fine.
  • Cite 65, a-e: Fine.
  • Cite 34, a-c: Fine. Is "Oliver Strachey" in the clipping the "Ray Strachey" in the article?
Yes, the "Mrs. Oliver Strachey" is Ray. "Ray Costelloe had met and become very attached to the Strachey family, to which she became formally connected through her marriage, on 31 May 1911, to Oliver Strachey"
Ah ah! Good. Thanks.
  • Cite 35, d: Fine.
  • Cite 98, a & b: Fine.
  • Cite 17: Some confusion? This doesn't fully support "A delegation of 80 French women led by Valentine Thomson, editor of La Vie Feminine". "80 delegates" and "led" are the issues.
Actually the problem was that adding sources to explain who Thomson was broke the citation to her leading 80 delegates. I have repaired the citations, which state "...in an address to a delegation of 80 French women...Mlle Valentine Thomson introduced the women..." SusunW (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had a quick search in the area, but managed to miss it
  • Cite 3: Fine.
  • Cite 91, a & b: Fine.
  • Cite 90, a & b: Fine.

A couple of queries above from the spot checks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used are all reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. I have rarely seen such a broad range of sources and perspectives. Probably every statement in the article could be cited to three different sources from the bibliography. The sources referred to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them, see above. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

No doubt Laser brain will be along shortly to give due consideration to the comments of the various reviewers. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 November 2019 [29].

Carlos Castillo Armas

[edit]
Nominator(s): Vanamonde (Talk) 18:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a controversial character in Guatemalan history. Castillo Armas was a military officer exiled during the Guatemalan Revolution, who then led a rebel force armed and funded by the CIA to topple the Guatemalan government in 1954. He was President for three years before being assassinated. I've dug pretty deep into the sources on this subject over the years; this is the fourth article from this period on Guatemalan history that I have brought to FAC. This page benefited from a detailed GA review from Midnightblueowl, and a A-class review from the military history Wikiproject. All comments are welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:31, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

I went through this article in detail at Milhist ACR, but I have a few comments from a another read through:

  • in the lead, suggest "US support tofor the rebels"
    Done.
  • do we know the names of his parents?
    I'm afraid not...I've looked quite a bit. I can't even find it in dodgy sources. Perhaps hard-copy records somewhere in Guatemala would have this information; perhaps not even there.
  • link President of Guatemala at first mention
    Done.
  • "The agrarian reform law angered" this needs introduction. When was it introduced and by whom? Also, should this be in past tense? ie "The agrarian reform law introduced by Foo in 194X had angered the UFC" and "it had been granted further favours..." etc Then the agrarian reform is introduced. I think this para needs rewriting.
    I looked at that whole section, and I was confused by it myself. I've reordered a lot of it, and added some context about Arbenz and agrarian reform. Take a look.
  • suggest "to see the Arévalo government as communist"
    I think this is now less important, see reorganization
  • Árbenz isn't properly introduced as becoming president. Suggest adding this in at the appropriate point.
    Per above.
  • "communist leaders in Guatemala" but were they really communist, or is that a misnomer
    Yeah, it's a misnomer. That was the excuse, not the reason. Tweaked.
  • "the former lieutenant of Arana"
    Done.
  • I think "Castillo Armas had eventually risen to the rank of lieutenant colonel" should be in the Early life and career section
    Probably. Done.
  • "Armas had beenremained on the CIA payroll" as we have already been told he was paid a retainer
    Done
  • "the rebels attempted to attacked the capital"
    done.
  • who was Monzón Aguirre? is this the same guy as Colonel H. Elfego Monzón?
    Same guy. The variation in how the sources deal with Spanish naming led to the confusion...I've now gone with just "Monzon" after first use.
  • "opposed to the reforms of the Guatemalan Revolution" what were these? The land reforms?
    Not just the land reforms...pretty much everything; literacy, broad voting rights, land reform, communist legalization, unionization, minimum wage...etc. These were essentially the social and economic elite, whose power and influence Arevalo threatened. I think it's too much detail here; Guatemalan Revolution covers some of it.
  • link Guatemalan Party of Labour, which appears to be the Communist Party of Guatemala
    That's the one. Linked.

That's all for now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks as always. I think I've got everything. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Big improvement in the flow and background/context. Just one final thing, there are two citations to Gleijeses 1991, this should be 1992. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:10, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Thanks, fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great, supporting. Nice work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:30, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources checked & all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 23 requires pp.
  • It isn't necessary to add retrieval dates for book sources, e.g. Lenz, McAllister, McCleary. Nor for the Life magazine either, since it links to the original. (I found that 1954 magazine absolutely fascinating, by the way, especially the adverts)
  • Quality/reliability: no issues - sources appear to meet all the necessary FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 23 fixed; unnecessary accessdates removed. I've been using the google books reference generator, which has been sticking that in, and I didn't catch it...Vanamonde (Talk) 00:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • over 70,000 people and added 10% of the population to a list of suspected communists Replace the symbol of per cent with "percent".
    Done
  • I see a lot of howevers maybe trim seven of them.
    Trimmed a few; I think the rest are necessary to the flow.
  • only candidate; he won the election with 99% of the vote --> "only candidate; he won the election with 99 percent of the vote"
    Done
  • ulminating in the Guatemalan Civil War of 1960 to 1996 --> "ulminating in the Guatemalan Civil War from 1960 to 1996."
    I think the current version flows better, and it isn't incorrect
  • with the aim of blowing up railways and cutting telegraph lines --> "to blow up railways and cut telegraph lines"
    I disagree with this; I think the current version conveys the meaning more clearly
  • Castillo Armas gave corn import licences to some British licences.
    Done
  • and soon afterwards declared a "state of siege" and seized British afterwards.
    Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Thanks for your comments; I've responded to each. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

I've had this on the Urgents list for a while but with no activity in over a month, it doesn't look to have the legs right now. I'll give it a couple more days, but then it will need to be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Carlos_Castillo_Armas_(Anti-Communist_Speech).png: "Unknown U.S. official " is not exactly what the source says - what leads you to believe the current tagging is correct?
    Sigh. Valid point. I had forgotten that I had had a lengthy email exchange with the folks running footage farm, in which they insisted that the video was in the public domain because it was from the National Archives, but refused to provide me any way of verifying that (including refusing to provide call numbers, etc, from the archive). I have removed the image. I see no other available image that doesn't have these problems.
  • File:Un-guatemala.png: possible to provide a specific link or source citation? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Took me a while, but yes, done. Back for the other one tomorrow. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

Support: G'day, I note the request above for more reviewers. I will take a look at this presently. Should hopefully post some comments tonight. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Responded to all but the translations, which I'm working on. Thanks for the review. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest linking junta, scorched earth, lieutenant colonel, colonel
    Done.
  • Sandoval persuaded Francisco Javier Arana: suggest adding Arana's rank here as it appears to be mentioned in the lead
    There's uncertainty over what Arana's rank was at this time; he eventually became a colonel, but it's unclear if he was when he was persuaded.
    No worries, that's fair enough. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Castillo Armas had encountered the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA): move the full name of the Central Intelligence Agency to the paragraph above this where it is first mentioned
    Done
  • described him as "a quiet, soft-spoken officer who does not seem to be given to exaggeration" --> "described him as "a quiet, soft-spoken officer who...[did]...not seem to be given to exaggeration"
    Done
  • Castillo Armas had led an assault against Matamoros along with a handful of supporters.[10] The attack had failed --> "Castillo Armas led an assault against Matamoros along with a handful of supporters.[10] The attack failed..."
    That's better, yes. Done.
  • retained by the CIA by paying him $3,000 a week --> "retained by the CIA who paid him $3,000 a week"
    Done.
  • leader from the perspective of the CIA --> "leader from the CIA's perspective"?
    Done.
  • Bogged down by supplies and a lack of transportation --> "Bogged down by limited supplies and a lack of transportation"?
    I was about to make this change, but decided to check the source, and it's a good thing I did; source is saying they were encumbered by supplies, while being on foot. Rephrased for clarity.
    That change looks good to me. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • junta with Colonel H. Elfego Monzón: adjust the link here so that it only covers the name, not the rank
    Fixed.
  • force of 122 men targeting Zacapa were --> " force of 122 men targeting Zacapa was"?
    Good spot. Fixed.
  • not sure if this has been discussed already -- sorry if it has -- but is there an image of the individual himself that might be used for the article?
    Ugh. Yes, it's been discussed. There's a bunch of images, with no explicit documentation. Often they are from websites run by alumni of the army academy, and such things. I have tried very hard over the years to find images with explicit license information (see below exchange with Nikkimaria); this has been going on for years, since I started writing about this general area in 2014. If this is something that is a deal-breaker then so be it, but I don't think it's a problem that's fixable without someone digging around in the national archives either in Guatemala City or Washington DC.
    Not a deal breaker for me -- sounds frustrating. Hopefully, one day, a suitable image will eventually become available, but it sounds to me like you've done your best in this regard, which is good enough from my perspective given we are all just volunteers. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Castillo Armas, in contrast, was described...: perhaps say who described him this way
    It's Cullather. Added.
  • In August, the government: might be best to add the year here to clarify
    Still 1954. Added.
  • Footnote b probably needs a full stop
    Fixed.
  • Though crimes against civilians were committed by both sides, 93 percent of such atrocities were committed by the US-backed military.[106][108][109][110] -- is it necessary for four citations here? I understand it is controversial, but potentially this isn't really necesary
    It shouldn't be, but it was the subject of a disagreement on a related page. I'd prefer to keep them in unless you feel really strongly.
    Not a major concern from my perspective; if it is in response to earlier concerns then it is probably best to keep them all. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Bibliography, "p. 237" isn't necessary for the McLeary entry
    Done.
  • in the Bibliography, suggest adding the translation for the title of the Castaneda source, and others that are not in English. The |trans-title= parameter in the cite book template supports this presentation
    I'll work on it. I don't trust google scholar, nor my mediocre Spanish, in this respect.
    No worries, you might be able to find someone with the appropriate language skills here: Wikipedia:Translators available. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11 November 2019 [30].

Hellraiser: Judgment

[edit]
Nominator(s): DarkKnight2149 02:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2018 horror film written and directed by Gary J. Tunnicliffe; the tenth film in the Hellraiser media franchise. This is my first FA nomination, so I apologise if I did something wrong during the nomination. I have checked the criteria, and going from that, I believe this meets FA standards. However, I do understand that those standards are quite high while nominating this. The article was previously FA mentored by Masem. DarkKnight2149 02:52, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
Resolved comments
  • The references in the infobox should not be necessary as all of that information should be cited in the body of the article.
Done. DarkKnight2149 02:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I wish I noticed this comment a little sooner. DarkKnight2149 03:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any reason for the citation in the lead's first sentence? I have seen some editors to do it because film genre can be somewhat contentious and they use a citation to support that information, but I just wanted to make sure.
Done, Removed. It was leftover from the article's early days; originally intended to be a source for the exact ordering of the cast members in the lead before the official billing came out. DarkKnight2149 02:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend adding some form of ALT text to the infobox image as you have done for the images in the body of the article.
Done. DarkKnight2149 03:02, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (It is the tenth installment in the Hellraiser film series created by Clive Barker, written and directed by the series' longtime FX artist Gary J. Tunnicliffe.), I would replace the "comma" after "Barker" with an "and" instead.
Done. DarkKnight2149 03:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (Newcomer Paul T. Taylor was cast after impressing Tunnicliffe in an audition for another character, and auditioned again for Pinhead.), I would avoid repeating "audition"/"auditioned" as it is a little repetitious.
Done. Reworded. DarkKnight2149 03:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain of the usefulness of the "Chatter" wikilink. It is a redirect that I do not find particularly helpful for someone unfamiliar with the character. I would remove it altogether because the character is already described in this article enough to help an unfamiliar reader.
Done. Used to be an article. DarkKnight2149 03:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the same reasons as above, I do not find the "Cenobites" wikilink to be particularly useful and I would remove it.
Done, ditto. DarkKnight2149 03:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who has never seen any of these films, I cannot speak to the accuracy of the plot section so I will just be pointing out prose suggestions.
  • I have a question for this part: "who went missing near the abandoned house at 55 Ludovico Place.". The "the" in "the abandoned house" makes it sound like it is the only abandoned house in that area and is notable for that reason. If that is not true, then I would use "an abandoned house" instead.
Comment: 55 Ludovico Place refers to that house specifically. DarkKnight2149 03:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I read over the house numbers so that was my fault. Aoba47 (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little confused on why "Christine Egerton" is referred to by her last name while "Sean and David Carter" are referred to by their first names. For the sake of consistency, I would refer to characters by their first names after their first mentions.
Done. Because they have the same surname. Edited for consistency, though. DarkKnight2149 03:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a few comments for this sentence (Upon arrival, Sean disarms David and summons his wife, Alison (Rheagan Wallace), outraged that she had a secret affair). I think you can just say "an affair" as affairs are normally kept secret. I am also a little confused by the "summons" phrasing. This is a more supernatural film so when I first read this, I thought she was like a ghost or something that was being summoned. Again, I have never seen this film before, so I was wondering if you could clarify how Alison's character is brought into the plot a little more for an unfamiliar reader like myself.
Done. Perhaps "summons" was too formal. Changed to "Upon arrival, Sean disarms David and reveals that he is holding his wife Alison (Rheagan Wallace) hostage, outraged that she had an affair." DarkKnight2149 03:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part (outraged that she had a secret affair. He forces the two of them to open the box at gunpoint). From my understanding, the people present in this scene are Sean, David, Alison, and Christine. Who are "the two of them" being referenced here? I am assuming it is some combination of David, Alison, and Christine, but it is not immediately clear to me.
Christine was unconscious as a result of being incapacitated. Changed to "David and Alison" instead of "Two of them". DarkKnight2149 03:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a little confused by this part (Pinhead tells him that they will be dealt with for opening the box). Alison and David were clearly forced to open the box by Sean and did not do it willingly. Does the film address this at all?
Comment: The Cenobites tend to kidnap anyone who opens the box. In some of the earlier films and comics, it's established that the box cannot be opened (because of its supernatural nature) unless some part of you truly desires it. However, the franchise is inconsistent on that.
After Hellraiser 1-4, continuity became iffy and the films are now mostly standalones that loosely connect to each other. Even the Cenobites have gone from being neutral sadomasochists from Hell, to evil Freddy Krueger-esque slasher villains, to demon overlords that judge sinners, and now back to being sadomasochists from Hell (with another faction of Hell introduced to retcon the "judging" stuff). DarkKnight2149 04:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I had assumed, but I just wanted clarification. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk)
  • If "police detective" is going to be linked, then it should be moved up to the first instance in the article, which should be here: ". On Earth, three detectives – brothers Sean and David Carter (Randy Wayne) and Christine Egerton – investigate a serial killer known as the Preceptor, whose murders are based on the Ten Commandments."
Done. DarkKnight2149 04:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, "The Auditor's typewriter paper is made of flesh and inked in blood; he often carries a music box, its song a comforting remnant of his human past", I would directly name the song rather than hiding it in the "song" wikilink. It seems too much like an Easter egg for my liking.
Done. DarkKnight2149 04:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence "Gulager directed several horror films, including the Feast series and Piranha 3DD." needs a citation.
Reworded to sounded less WP:SYNy. I'll add a citation shortly. DarkKnight2149 04:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. DarkKnight2149 16:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no benefit to wikilinking "nineties" in this part: "Tunnicliffe conceived the Cleaners as in their nineties". The same comment applies to "twenties" in this part: "three nude women in their twenties".
Done. DarkKnight2149 04:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jophiel is wikilinked more than once in the body of the article. Wikilinks should only be used once and on the first instance the word(s) appear in the body of the article. The same comment applies to "heaven".
Done. DarkKnight2149 13:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence "Decades before the development of Hellraiser: Judgment, Dimension Films obtained the rights to the Hellraiser and Children of the Corn film series", *I would add the wikilink to the article on the Hellraiser series. I do not believe it was linked before this part unless I am mistaken.
Done. DarkKnight2149 13:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see the value of the wikilink for "the Female Cenobite".
Done. DarkKnight2149 13:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add a citation to this "and scenes involving the Cleaners" to clarify what reference is being used to support this information.
Comment: To clarify, it's backed by the same Bloody-Disgusting citation as the following sentence. Hence why there's no intermediate citation. DarkKnight2149 13:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few wikilinks that I feel are unnecessary because they are common knowledge. I do not see a reason why "dialogue", "bracelet", "suit", and "cast" are linked because I think a majority of readers would know these concepts. I am not saying that they need to be removed altogether, but I wanted to raise this to your attention.
Removed several of them. DarkKnight2149 15:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this quote "I have a reliable source who just informed me that Hellraiser: Judgment has been on a shelf for a while, unfinished. But now that Harvey Weinstein is out of the picture, Hellraiser: Judgment has been taken off that shelf and is back in post-production.", remove the link to "out of the picture". You already have the sexual allegations linked in the next sentence, and linking that to "out of the picture" borders too much again on an Easter egg for my liking.
Done. DarkKnight2149 15:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part "Brad Miska of Bloody Disgusting called it "the most authentic Hellraiser since Bloodline (1996)", I would not include the year as part of the wikilink.
Done, linked in an earlier section. Removed from the Brad Miska sentence. DarkKnight2149 15:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dread Central" is wikilinked multiple times in the article.
Done. Bloody-Disgusting and Dread Central should only be linked once now. Let me know if I missed any. DarkKnight2149 15:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see the need for the wikilink for "Butterball Cenobite".
Done. DarkKnight2149 13:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence (In May 2019 it was reported by Variety that a Hellraiser reboot is in the works at Spyglass Media Group with David S. Goyer serving as writer and producer.), there should be a comma after "In May 2019".
Done. DarkKnight2149 15:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have another comment about that sentence. It is typically discouraged to have a single sentence paragraph so I would see if there is a way to incorporate that information into the previous paragraph.
I expanded it a bit, if that's alright. DarkKnight2149 15:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review helps somewhat. This is a rather long article so I will have to read through it a few times to do a thorough review and make sure that I catch everything. Once my above comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to look through the article again to see if there is anything else. I am not familiar with this franchise at all so apologies if I am missing anything super obvious. Good luck with the FAC. I know it can be an intimidating process at first, but hopefully, you will get a lot of helpful feedback. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed/fixed the concerns raised. I appreciate you taking time for this review. Please let me know if some of the changes aren't satisfactory. DarkKnight2149 16:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would arrange the references in numeric order. I have always been told to do this in past FAC reviews, but it is not necessarily required for a FA. I just thought this point was worth raising.
What's numeric order, if you don't mind me asking? I'm only aware of citations being listed in the order they appear in the article. DarkKnight2149 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have been told in the past to put the references in a numeric order; for instance, in the sentence "Occasionally, its victims are deemed more suited to the Cenobites.", the references are currently in this order, "11, 13, 2, and 5". I have been told in the past to them in a numeric order, but it was brought to my attention recently that it is not a requirement. However, I just wanted to point that out to you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actress who plays Christine should be mentioned after the first time you mention her in the "Plot" section. Same goes for Pinhead and Jophiel.
Done. DarkKnight2149 20:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Lament Configuration wikilink is a redirect. I would remove it as it is not particularly insightful/useful for an unfamiliar reader.
Done. DarkKnight2149 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth is wikilinked multiple times in the body of the article.
Done. DarkKnight2149 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have a set structure for the "Critical response" section? It is generally encouraged that this type of section has some type of organization. I would recommend looking at this source to see what I am referring to.
Done. DarkKnight2149 20:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "cast" wikilink should be moved up to the first time "cast" is used in the body of the article.
In this section, casting refers to the manufacturing process rather than the hiring of actors. DarkKnight2149 20:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should be my final set of comments. Once everything is address, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any input for my current FAC. It is a complete 180 from this in terms of topic, but any feedback would helpful. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look at it when I get the chance. DarkKnight2149 20:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from theJoebro64

[edit]

I come to this as a Hellraiser neophyte, so this article looks quite interesting. I'm going to post some comments in the coming days. JOEBRO64 19:58, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here comes my first round:

  • I'm not sure if I'm really a fan of how the lede is structured. It goes immediately into production information for a couple sentences before out of nowhere switching to plot information, which I find sort of jarring. The second paragraph has the same issue. I'd propose changing it to resemble the structure of the article more. Here's how the first paragraph would look.
Hellraiser: Judgment is a 2018 American horror film starring Damon Carney, Randy Wayne, Alexandra Harris, Heather Langenkamp, and Paul T. Taylor as Pinhead. It is the tenth installment in the Hellraiser film series created by Clive Barker and written and directed by the series' longtime FX artist Gary J. Tunnicliffe. The plot centers on three police detectives who, investigating a series of murders, are confronted by the denizens of hell. The film expands the fictional universe by introducing a new faction of hell, the Stygian Inquisition, who are distinct from the recurring Cenobites. The Cenobites offer sadomasochistic pleasures to humans who enter their dominion, while the Inquisition processes the souls of sinners. Tunnicliffe plays the Inquisition's auditor, a prominent role in the film.
Then you could solely dedicated the next two paragraphs to production, and the last to release and reception. I feel like this will flow more naturally, and is in line with other film-related FAs.
How's this? DarkKnight2149 03:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... starring Damon Carney, Randy Wayne, Alexandra Harris, Heather Langenkamp, and Paul T. Taylor as Pinhead." They all play Pinhead? Be careful of grammatical ambiguity like this.
That's how the official billing block reads. DarkKnight2149 03:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but we don't necessarily need to follow the billing religiously. I still think it's distracting and could be changed in some way. JOEBRO64 16:03, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. DarkKnight2149 17:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd change "FX artist" to "special make-up effects artist", as "FX" strikes me as film jargon and could be confused with things like the FX channel.
Done. DarkKnight2149 03:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "hell" need to be linked? IMO anyone with a brain can figure out that you're referring to the netherworld.
Done. DarkKnight2149 03:26, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of your clauses can easily be excised without losing clarity or meaning. For instance: "... giving Tunnicliffe a chance to propose his vision to the studio." and "Tunnicliffe plays the Inquisition's auditor, a prominent role in the film."
Done. DarkKnight2149 15:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. DarkKnight2149 15:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. JOEBRO64 20:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Darkknight2149: please forgive me, I completely forgot about this... will get to more this week. Been a bit busy. JOEBRO64 22:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: Understandable. DarkKnight2149 23:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I have to say about the plot:

  • There was a big RFC a few months ago (I'll try to find the link) about including actors in parentheses in the plot summary, and the consensus was that it's redundant if there's a "Cast" section below.
Done. DarkKnight2149 05:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some things need a bit of explaining. For instance, what's a Centobite?
Changed to In hell, Pinhead, of the Cenobite faction, and the Auditor of the Stygian Inquisition.... The Cast and characters section goes into further detail. DarkKnight2149 05:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... near the an abandoned house at 55 Ludovico Place." Do we really need to know the address?
Done. DarkKnight2149 05:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking good. Will start cast by Saturday. JOEBRO64 23:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well it ain't Saturday but here we go again:

  • I'd format the cast section using line breaks and colons, sort of like how it's done with newer films (for instance, Joker (2019 film), an article I have worked substantially on). For example, it'd read better like:
    • Damon Carney as Detective Sean Carter / The Preceptor:[2]
      A police detective who investigates a string of murders...
Got it. DarkKnight2149 21:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The director was pleased that Langenkamp agreed to take part in the film, since she is regularly offered horror-film roles. Which director? I'm assuming Tunnicliffe, but you've just mentioned Freihofer too.
Tunnicliffe. Changed to "he", since Tunnicliffe is mentioned at the end of the preceding sentence. DarkKnight2149 08:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... unlike the most-recent sequels... → "... unlike the more recent sequels..."
Done. DarkKnight2149 08:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Time and budget contributed to Tunnicliffe's playing the character..."
Done. DarkKnight2149 08:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ref at the end of the Chatterer's point—do the page numbers need to be separate from the citation? My understanding is that they can be separate if you're not just citing one specific section, but since this appears to be the only time the book is referenced I think they should be in the citation itself.
Got it. DarkKnight2149 08:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Diane Goldner plays a Cleaner:, ..."

JOEBRO64 21:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. DarkKnight2149 08:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And development:

Got it. DarkKnight2149 08:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... Gary Tunnicliffe [...] pitched a Hellraiser story, entitled Holy War, to Dimension..."
Got it. DarkKnight2149 08:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... but could not direct it due to an FX scheduling conflict with Scream 4. Do you need the "FX" here? I already mentioned that it's sorta jargon-y, and we've already established that he's an FX artist as well.
Got it. DarkKnight2149 08:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... more traditional Hellraiser film, entitled Enter Darkness', to demonstrate..."
Done. DarkKnight2149 08:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JOEBRO64 22:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: Reminder. DarkKnight2149 03:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah. I've just made a minor edit to the cast section; will get to more of production later today. Thanks for reminding me. JOEBRO64 11:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have any comments about the original treatment section, but I do want to ask it it's possible to integrate it into the main development section. You don't need to if you disagree.
  • The preparation included smoking (unusual for the actor)—"the actor" can just be replaced by "Taylor"
Done. DarkKnight2149 00:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Filming of Hellraiser: Judgment took place..."
Done. DarkKnight2149 00:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judgment actor John Gulager directed the latter. "The latter" is unclear; I'd just say Runaway.
Done. DarkKnight2149 00:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and a "piss" yellow applied... I know Wikipedia isn't censored, but I don't think "piss" adds anything to the statement. Everyone knows that pee is yellow.
The statement refers to the specific shade. DarkKnight2149 00:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you integrate the budget number in here? I think it'd flow well if you wrote in the first sentence: "Filming took place over a three-week period in Oklahoma, on a relatively small budget of $350,000."
Done. DarkKnight2149 19:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Paul T. Taylor's portrayal of Pinhead was intended to be leaner and more serious than previous incarnations of the character..."
Done. DarkKnight2149 19:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... a homage to the Eye of Agamotto symbolism from the Doctor Strange comic books was integrated into the costume." I think you need to clarify you're talking about the comics, as I thought you were referring to the movie before I checked the link.
From what I can tell, he meant Doctor Strange in general. Changed to "the Doctor Strange lore". DarkKnight2149 19:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason you keep calling Taylor by his full name? From what I can tell he's the only guy named Taylor.
Done. DarkKnight2149 19:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, we're done with the meat. Release, reception, and future shouldn't take too long. JOEBRO64 01:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments:

  • ... aside from the promo images... "promo" is too jargon-y, change to "promotional"
  • Again with Taylor's full name
Done. DarkKnight2149 19:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... date were made public released on January 9, 2018."
  • The two generalized statements ("Hellraiser: Judgment was compared favorably..." and "Some reviewers...") should have refs after them, since they could be challenged.
  • Italicize IGN, and link to Birth.Movies.Death.
  • My only other comment for reception is that it seems to lean a smidge too much on direct quotes that could easily be paraphrased. I've noticed there are a good number of quotes throughout the article as well; while it's not a huge issue, you may want to paraphrase/reduce some of them to avoid copyvio.
  • Again with Taylor's full name in the future section
  • "In May 2019, it was reported by Variety reported that a reboot is being discussed at Spyglass Media Group is planning a Hellraiser reboot..."

Sorry I took far too long on this, but address these and you've got my support. Great work. JOEBRO64 01:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

[edit]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Hellraiser_Judgment_home_video_art.jpg: FUR is incomplete. Same with File:Hellraiser_Judgment_blue.jpg, File:Hellraiser_Judgment_yellow.jpg. Given the number of non-free images in the article these should be not only complete but also stronger. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. DarkKnight2149 20:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would like to see stronger FURs for the second and third images. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I'm afraid I'm not understanding the issue. Could you please explain what about the FUR doesn't hold up to standard? DarkKnight2149 02:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment both say that they demonstrate the film's use of colour. What is the significance of this? Why is it not sufficient to just say that? What additional benefit does a reader gain by having these images? These are the sorts of questions I'd like to see answered in a strong FUR in the case that an article contains several non-free works. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The FUR has been elaborated upon, per request. DarkKnight2149 00:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "As stated by writer/director Gary J. Tunnicliffe" - where was this stated?
In the source for the budget in the article. DarkKnight2149 19:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Er, which one? This is the only footnote for the budget number in the infobox, and several sources cited in the body text could potentially be construed as "the source for the budget in the article". This needs clarification. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re-added to the infobox. Hopefully that's okay with Aoba47, since they asked me to remove it. DarkKnight2149 03:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the details in the infobox aren't cited anywhere - eg the credit to Griffin
On the official billing for the film, per the note. Nothing in the infobox isn't cited in the article or in the film's billing. DarkKnight2149 19:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Inline comments that aren't visible to users shouldn't be used to replace proper citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. DarkKnight2149 03:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had requested that the references should be removed from the infobox so apologies for that. I think all of the information in the infobox should be present in the article's prose and sourced there. I just wanted to clarify that. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest reducing reliance on Tunnicliffe as per WP:PSTS.
@Nikkimaria: The issue with this one is that, despite this being an installment in a major horror franchise covered by third party sources, the studio refused to market the film. The movie was greenlit as a rights retention project and was completely shelved at one point because of the infamous Weinstein situation. For the vast majority of the production, it was complete radio silence from the studio (much to the chagrin of entertainment sites and horror fans). It was put back into post-production after Dimension Films was running low on cash, and even then, it didn't get much press from the studio itself. This is why most of the scoops came from the cast and director.
I was very careful in wording the article. Any information that came from Tunnicliffe is often worded as "According to Tunnicliffe" or in a way that people know who this is coming from. Anything opinion-related or subjective is relegated to quotes. I was also very picky about not stating things as absolute fact wherever applicable. This film didn't receive the marketing that you would expect from a studio production. DarkKnight2149 00:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that there might not be the depth of sourcing available; however, I would still prefer to see less of Tunnicliffe. For example, "Disliking some of the script's fantastical elements, Carney approached the role from a grounded perspective" is Tunnicliffe's interpretation of Carney's viewpoint, and is not framed in the way you suggest. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed as much as I could without cutting out important information. DarkKnight2149 03:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're currently not consistent in how you format references to Two Hours in the Dark
Done. DarkKnight2149 00:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of your refs have a date provided at the source but not included in the citation - eg. FN1, 3, 4...
Done. DarkKnight2149 16:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN6 should not include website in the title parameter
Done. DarkKnight2149 01:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Bloody Disgusting linked in FN8 but not FN1? Should be consistent - either link first time only, every time, or never
Done. DarkKnight2149 01:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes 1428 Elm a high-quality reliable source? Halloweenlove? Morbidly Beautiful? Clive Barker Cast? Joblo? Open the Trunk? Birth.Movies.Death (which you've represented as Birth.Death.Movies)? Flickering Myth?
The Halloweenlove article was written by a professional reporter who frequently works for Bloody-Disgusting. Likewise, the editor of BD John Squires (who has done work for a number of reliable sources) is a contributor as well, and the source was used specifically for a direct quote from the filmmakers. FanSided (aka 1428 Elm) is a direct interview with the actor. So is Morbidly Beautiful and Open the Trunk. Clive Barker Podcast is definitely reliable for interviews, especially audio interviews. They have done a number of video, audio, and written interviews with Clive Barker and various filmmakers related to Barker. However, I don't think the podcast is reliable for scoops or general news. JoBlo.com is a reputable news site. A section at WP:RSN on Flickering Myth has been opened in the past with no objections, and it is used as a source on quite a few Wikipedia articles. The Birth.Movies.Death review is counted by Rotten Tomatoes (which only acknowledges professional reviewers). DarkKnight2149 02:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is an interview, doesn't make it a high-quality reliable source. Still also concerned about Flickering Myth and Birth.Movies.Death - need more information on why these should be considered reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Birth.Movies.Death review should be reliable enough for the critical response section, as per Rotten Tomatoes [31] and Variety. I went ahead and removed the Flickering Myth source, since the 2017 release date is also stated in the following Dread Central source and it's easier than waiting on a second WP:RSN that nobody is going to respond to. There probably should be a deeper discussion as to the reliability of Flickering Myth, since quite a few Wikipedia articles are using it as a source. DarkKnight2149 20:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What about the other interview sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ping. Again, I appreciate that there are relatively few reliable secondary sources, but unfortunately that's sometimes the way the cookie crumbles. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Morbidly Beautiful is quite prolific when it comes to interviews, some of which have been cited on other Wikipedia articles, and some of the reporters there have done work for higher profile reliable third party sources such as Dread Central and Screen Rant. FanSided ought to be a reliable interview source, as I do recall them receiving a number of scoops, such as for the TV series Gotham (example). The OpenTheTrunk interview was also covered by reliable third party sources, [32] [33], [34]. DarkKnight2149 06:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Getting scoops isn't in itself a marker of reliability though. Take a look at this resource. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: FanSided is a professional news site that has partnered with other publications (such as Sports Illustrated) in the past. I'm open to an WP:RSN if you're not convinced that it's a credible interview source. DarkKnight2149 15:22, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • YouTube is a platform, not a work
YouTube is the site and platform it is posted on, hence why it is listed in the "Website" parameter. The content creator/uploader is listed in "Publisher". I don't see the problem. DarkKnight2149 01:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That logic doesn't make sense in the context of YouTube videos. The uploader is the author - in the case that someone is being interviewed, it should be cited as an interview instead of shoehorning them into the author parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should I list the uploader as "author" and "YouTube" as the website and publisher? Is this an improvement? I don't believe we can list the uploader under "Website" because they aren't a website. DarkKnight2149 02:54, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are authors, but as they are usernames they shouldn't be inverted as with a typical author name. Regarding placement, see the documentation for {{cite web}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The video interviews are replaced with "Cite interview" template. DarkKnight2149 21:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN16: website doesn't match source
Done. DarkKnight2149 02:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn22 and 24 are to the same source but are not formatted the same
Reformatted. The title capitalisation is different because the source itself did it differently. I can update the capitalisation on one of them, if you want. DarkKnight2149 03:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN47 is badly formatted
Tweaked. DarkKnight2149 03:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this is now 46, still needs improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. If this one doesn't work, I'm open to suggestions. DarkKnight2149 02:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just take out |publisher=. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. DarkKnight2149 06:37, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN48 author formatting doesn't match other refs
Done. DarkKnight2149 03:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN58: work link should be piped.
Fixed. DarkKnight2149 03:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pending cleanup. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough suggestions in helping to improve the article. DarkKnight2149 22:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Reading through now....

  • Some formatting inconsistencies - the Cast and characters section is a bulleted list....until it isn't, which looks odd. Also - the Development and Casting sections have quotes that are formatted differently. I'd pick one style and go with it - no strong opinion on this but I slightly prefer the one in Casting.
The bulleted list refers to primary actors, while the final paragraph is a summarisation of the more minor cast members (or characters with less information) that appear in the film. This is a pretty common format in film articles. DarkKnight2149 07:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The makeup-effects team was led by Mike Regan and Mike Measimer[, who helped bring to life Pinhead, Chatterer, the Stitch Twins, the Butcher, the Surgeon, and the Auditor] - I would have thought that was obvious. I'd remove the bracket bit as obvious, redundant and a bit puffy.
Done. DarkKnight2149 21:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul T. Taylor's portrayal of Pinhead was intended to be leaner, meaner and more no-nonsense than previous incarnations of the character, lacking the earlier films' glib one-liners. - err, "more serious"? - does "leaner" mean "thinner"? This comes over as jargony.
Does "leaner and more serious" work? DarkKnight2149 21:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yep Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • , "we've decided to stay tight-lipped now until the film's release next year." - I'd dequote this to "declined to speculate about the film's release" and leave the next bit as a quotation. Is a bit jarring as is.

:: Does this this work? DarkKnight2149 21:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • but added "that says a lot more about how bad those other films are than how good this one is. - better rephrased and dequoted.
Done. DarkKnight2149 07:00, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tunnicliffe had to balance directing the film and overseeing the FX work. - you mean "special effects work"? abbreviation a bit too casual I think
Done. DarkKnight2149 21:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, prose is otherwise okay, and seems pretty comprehensive. Need to look over again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Alright, sorry for the slight wait. I'm going to be spending the next few days addressing these concerns. DarkKnight2149 03:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool/life happens/go for it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 November 2019 [35].

Charles H. Stonestreet

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 19th-century Jesuit who led Georgetown University and the American Jesuit province at a critical time in their history. He had a rather interesting life. One tidbit is that he was called as a character witness for two of the conspirators in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. This is a second nomination, as the first did not generate sufficient comments. Ergo Sum 03:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]

I've had the pleasure of reviewing Ergo Sum's work on a number of occasions and this is a good example of one such article which I reviewed for GA-class but which I felt fundamentally exceeded those requirements. I'm pleased to see it here at FAC and also pleased to offer my support to the nomination. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

- spotchecks not done

Ceoil

[edit]

Will look over next few days. Ceoil (talk) 03:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support, have read about half. Two things so far:
  • The article is very much a CV; especially in the very dense lead, where its all about the sequence of the progression of his career...and then..and then..and then.., and there is very little context. I don't really mind - notability is not in question, but is there a way to breath more life into it? Or shorthen so only the major progressions are mentioned, and not drowned by minor events. That would increase the chances of readers not getting exhausted and reading further. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admittedly, given a broad, contextual flavor to articles is not my strong suit, since it generally involves to quite a bit more research into ancillary events, which I don't know if I have the time to do at the moment. Ergo Sum 17:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've realized what I was trying to say. The article is too verbose, perhaps because sources are hard to find, and there may have been padding in earlier drafts. Not that I would remove any claims, but certainly would state them in less words. This is an example of what I mean, and you could certainly cut the lead by 33%...its a dense and daunting read as it stands. Note I am still leading support. Ceoil (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you create a small article on the know nothings...they sound frustratingly fascinating, but are currently unexplained in the lead only.
  • For many years, discussions had occurred about establishing a dedicated scholasticate to educate new Jesuits, which would be separate from Georgetown, which educated lay students and where many of the Jesuit scholastics were teachers. this is hard to parse for several reasons. Ceoil (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not withstanding, I am a Support here, working on the lead, and expectant that Ergo will work through issue highlighted. Ceoil (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

I've had this on the Urgents list for a while but it's stalled in recent weeks and doesn't have the amount of attention needed at present. I'll need to archive it within the coming days if it doesn't attract some more review. --Laser brain (talk) 18:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor

[edit]
Prose
  • "He then was appointed President of Georgetown University in 1851, where he oversaw expansion of the university's library." - probably worth mentioning how long he was president
  • Any idea for which subject he was a professor?
  • "Bishops James Oliver Van de Velde of Chicago, Richard Pius Miles of Nashville, John Baptist Miège of the Indian Territory East of the Rocky Mountains.[21]" - missing an "and"
  • "His father was a distinguished lawyer who intended Charles to enter the legal profession." - I think it should be "intended for"
  • "Administration of the university by the generally low-key Stonestreet " - "low-key" might be a bit informal for an encylopedia article, IMO
  • "The several Chilean students successfully petitioned to be relieved of the requirement's frequency.[25]" - not sure if you explained why this is, but I read it and had no idea what this sentence meant... am I misisng something? Why the Chilean students in particular?
  • "That August, accepted an appointment as provincial superior of the Maryland province of the Society of Jesus; Bernard A. Maguire was named as his successor.[23]" - Stonestreet missing?
  • "He took office in the immediate aftermath" - As this is a new section, I think it should be "Stonestreet" rather than "He".
  • "For many years, the Jesuit leadership had discussed establishing a scholasticate for the education new Jesuits." - education of
  • " instead using secular styles such as "doctor."[36]" - Is styles the right word here, or did you mean titles?
  • "As president, Stonestreet" - probably worth saying "As president of Gonzaga"
  • "In 1860, he resignated as president of the school to the Jesuit Superior General,[46] " - resignated? A typo I think.
  • "In addition to during time as president, Stonestreet served on the board of directors of Georgetown from 1861 to 1862 and from 1863 to 1864.[49]" - Not sure the bolded bit is grammatically correct.
  • "He returned as a parish priest " - same note as above about starting a new section with "he"
  • "With the president of Georgetown, Bernard Maguire, health worsen in 1869," - typo(s)?
Images
  • File:Charles H. Stonestreet portrait.jpg - The license in the file description says it was never published, but the image description says that it was "First published in 'Gonzaga College, an Historical Sketch: From Its Foundation in 1821, to the Solemn Celebration of Its First Centenary in 1921' (1922) on p. 63." Those seem contradictory! I suspect the license template is wrong but that this is still public domain, though.
  • Other images all look fine to me. They also all have alt text.

Good work overall. More typos and grammatical errors than I'd expect given how short this article is, but nothing a solid read-through can't fix. Once that's been completed, I will likely support. ceranthor 01:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the thorough read through, Ceranthor. I'll take a look at all these tomorrow. Ergo Sum 03:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor: I will double-check on the question about what he was a professor of. Besides that, I believe I've addressed all your comments. Ergo Sum 18:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Satisfied with the changes made per my comments. ceranthor 00:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Coffeeandcrumbs

[edit]
  • It may be helpful to add a cite to his obit in WL.
  • "His father was a distinguished lawyer who intended for Charles" – His father is not mentioned by name, so is it necessary to use "Charles"
  • His obit linked above, at the top of p. 401, gives exact date he joined Society of Jesus as August 14, 1833
  • ...also mentions noviceship under Fridelis Grivel
  • ...obit also states he became spiritual father at the College of the Holy Cross in 1880 (p. 402)
  • ...was ill for two years before his death
  • ..."Dr. Samuel Mudd" — remove "Dr." in the two instances per MOS:DOCTOR

That's it for me. Feel free to ignore any and all recommendations. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 07:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Thank you for the comments. A very useful WL link. I'll go ahead and incorporate them. Ergo Sum 15:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 November 2019 [36].

Ninian Park

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Ninian Park, a football ground that was the home of Cardiff City F.C. for 99 years. It was also the home ground of the Wales national side for many years and hosted various other events during its lifespan. I believe the article provides a comprehensive history of the ground and would hope to bring it up to FA status. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Homeostasis07

[edit]

After reading the entire article, I have to point out that it's one of the most immaculately written articles I've read in quite a long time. I found a single typo:

Football League and development

  • The low crowd was blamed on the relatively unknown status of the opposition and the club's tie against Portuguese side Sporting CP, reigning champions of the competition,[41] in the following round attracted over 23,000 spectators, the biggest home crowd the club had played in front of for nearly two years.[44] – I'd suggest ending the sentence at ref 41, and beginning a new one with "The following round".

I'm not a football fan, but this article is genuinely informative. It seems brilliantly researched and referenced, and there's nothing prose-wise that I could complain about (although maybe you could link allotment for the casual American reader, because I'm not sure they'd know what that is). That being said, the article clearly uses British English, and is properly identified as such, so I don't see an issue in continuing with current formatting. Single typo aside (which I'm sure will be fixed anyway), I can easily support this article for promotion to FA. I hope this receives more commentary, because it's genuinely a brilliantly written article. Well done. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, I've fixed the typo and linked allotment. Appreciate it. Kosack (talk) 08:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links
  • Ref 78 returns 404 error - Archived
  • Otherwise links to sources all working
  • Formats
  • Ref 53: petty, but for "Cardiff Gate..." read "Cardiff gate..." - Fixed
  • Ref 55 asks me for a subscription, which is odd because ref 53 didn't, nor does 56
  • 53 and 56 are from Gale which appears to provide the user with the ability to view the source (I've only ever accessed them while logged in so only just noticed this), although accessing the site itself is subscription based. Kosack (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 70: in common with all other WalesOnline sources the publisher, Media Wales, should be added - Added
  • Quality reliability:
  • Ref 38: what makes "Duncan Adams" a reliable source?
  • Ref 80: what makes "Rugby League Project" a reliable source?
  • Otherwise, sources OK

Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Brianboulton: for the review. Let me know if there's anything else. Kosack (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd replace Rugby League Project, but otherwise all OK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. Kosack (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments Support from KJP1

[edit]

Football's not my bag, but Cardiff and the Butes definitely are. It reads exceptionally well. Comments below:

Lead
  • "in the Leckwith area of Cardiff" - the link takes me to the village, but there's also this, Leckwith, Cardiff. Not sure which is best, and oddly neither mentions NP.
  • "that was used as the home of Cardiff City F.C. for 99 years" - is the "used as" necessary? - Removed
  • "It was originally constructed with a single wooden stand and three large bankings made of ash" - got a bit confused here, thinking but ash is a wood? And not sure about "bankings". Perhaps "three large banks made of cinders"?
History - Construction and early years
  • "and Middlesbrough, held at the Harlequins Ground" - I don't know who the Harlequins were, or where their ground was? I guess they were these guys, Cardiff Grange Harlequins A.F.C., although the article says they were formed in 1935? Could we have a bit more detail?
  • "and he approached Bute Estate, a large landholder within the city," - "the Bute Estate"? - Added
  • "Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart", "Crichton-Stuart", "Lord Ninian" - he appears in all three guises in this section. The first appearance should be in full, as it is, but then I think you need to decide on Lord Ninian (as per the picture caption), or Crichton-Stuart (as per the text).
  • "The ground was surrounded by large mounds of ash and slag" - here, my confusion in the lead is clarified, but I wonder if it can be done earlier?
  • "J. Bell Harrison" - any idea what he was; local businessman, etc.?
History - Football League and development
  • "sea-washed turf" - I've no idea what this was/is, beyond the bleedin' obvious, and it appears to be its only use on Wikipedia, other than one related article. Do your sources provide any explanation?
It's not far from the obvious by the sound of it. Added a bit more explanation from a book source. Kosack (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Popular Bank was expanded, and a new roof installed over its rear section in 1958" (fourth para.) and "Connies & Meaden were employed again to construct a large roof over the rear section of the Popular Bank and to extend the stand the length of the pitch" (fifth para.) - Isn't the latter repeating the former?
  • "The low crowd was blamed on the relatively unknown status of the opposition and the club's tie against Portuguese side Sporting CP, reigning champions of the competition" - this may very well be my footballing ignorance, but I don't get why the tie contributed to the low turnout. Does it mean they were playing at the same time?
  • "In the following round attracted over 23,000 spectators" - something's missing here? "they"?
  • "There was no common sense [...] The Grangetown Stand had to be demolished" - I'm straying into unknown MoS territory here but, if it's not the beginning of a new sentence which I don't think it is, I'm not sure the T of The Grangetown should be capitalised. - Done
History - Downscaling, closure and demolition
  • "due to crowd trouble after the match. Jeff Cooksley, Chief Superintendent of South Wales Police, commented after the match that" - I suggest losing the second "after the match". - Done
  • "A planted square was proposed at the centre of the new housing development, in the area of Ninian Park's centre spot" - do we know if this was actually constructed?
Structure and facilities
  • Two points about captions in this section - What's the "Spar Family Stand" (bottom left in the montage of 4). It doesn't appear to be mentioned. Is it the Canton Stand? Secondly, the caption of the black and white image makes little sense to me. What is "led" and why, rather than calling it "a football stand", which could be anywhere, don't you say it's the "Popular Bank"?
Other uses - Rugby
  • "However, the Blue Dragons' failed to reach the top tier" - Don't think the apostrophe's needed. - Fixed
  • "Grogan's death soon after lead to the club folding after a year playing in Bridgend" - "led"? - Fixed

That's it from me. It is in great shape, and you're responding to my comments as fast as I can write the review. Looking forward to Supporting when you've had a chance to review the rest. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: Thanks for the review, I've addressed all of the points above. Let me know if there's anything else. Kosack (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good and pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment – I'm just getting back into the swing of things after a week's vacation and doubt I'll have time for a comprehensive review, but I did take a quick peek at the article and noticed a red link to Jack Peterson late in the body. With some digging, I found an article on a Jack Petersen who appears to be the person this refers to. It appears that he was born under the name used in this article (while fighting under the name Petersen), but regardless of which name is used in the article, the red link should probably be fixed. Best of luck with the FAC, as the article looks interesting from the portion I read. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sportsfan77777

[edit]

Lead

  • restricted them from joining the Southern Football League ===>>> prevented them from joining the Southern Football League Second Division
  • You should add a sentence towards the end of the second paragraph stating the maximum capacity in the stadium's history.
I had this idea myself but I've been unable to find a definite for the highest capacity that the ground achieved during its lifespan. Kosack (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Safety concerns led to it being replaced by Cardiff Arms Park as the preferred home venue for the national side. ===>>> Safety concerns led to ground's capacity being reduced and Cardiff Arms Park replacing the stadium as the preferred home venue for the national side.
  • Cardiff City's club record attendance was 57,893 during a Football League fixture against Arsenal on 22 April 1953. ===>>> Cardiff City's club record attendance of 57,893 came at the stadium in a Football League fixture against Arsenal on 22 April 1953.

Construction and early years

  • The limitations meant the club were ===>> The limitations meant the club was
  • but the facilities at Sophia Gardens were deemed inadequate for this growing support, with the site lacking turnstiles and an enclosed pitch. ===>>> but the facilities at Sophia Gardens were deemed inadequate for this growing support due to the lack of turnstiles or an enclosed pitch on the site. (Also to clarify, the site did not have an enclosed pitch, correct?)
  • Cardiff organised friendly matches against Crystal Palace and Bristol City, played at Cardiff Arms Park, and Middlesbrough, held at the Harlequins Ground, part of Cardiff High School. ===>>> Cardiff organised friendly matches against Crystal Palace, Bristol City, and Middlesbrough that were played at Cardiff Arms Park or the Harlequins Ground, a part of Cardiff High School.
  • The ground was surrounded by large mounds of ash and slag, sourced from the furnaces of local companies, used to form banking for spectators. ===>>> The ground was surrounded by large mounds of ash and slag that were sourced from the furnaces of local companies and used to form banking for spectators.
  • To secure the site, the club were ===>> To secure the site, the club was
  • One of the guarantors who had initially agreed to support the project later pulled out during development and the club's solicitor, Norman Robertson, addressed a local council meeting, stating that "there had been difficulties in obtaining promises of support" due to the uncertain state of the coal industry. ===>>> One of the guarantors who had initially agreed to support the project later pulled out during development. This led the club's solicitor, Norman Robertson, to address a local council meeting and state that "there had been difficulties in obtaining promises of support" due to the uncertain state of the coal industry.
  • Harry Bradshaw, secretary of the Southern Football League, inspected the ground ahead of the 1910–11 season and declared that Ninian Park had "the making of the finest football ground in the country." ====>>> Harry Bradshaw, secretary of the Southern Football League, inspected the ground ahead of the 1910–11 season. He declared that Ninian Park had "the making of the finest football ground in the country" and allowed Cardiff City to join the league's Second Division.
  • which attracted a crowd of around 7,000 people. ===>>> that attracted a crowd of around 7,000 people.
  • The first competitive match played at Ninian Park took place three weeks later, on 24 September 1910, with a 4–1 victory over Ton Pentre in the opening match of the 1910–11 season which attracted a crowd of around 8,000. ===>>> The first competitive match played at Ninian Park was the opening match of the 1910–11 season, which took place three weeks later on 24 September. It ended with a 4–1 victory over Ton Pentre and attracted a crowd of around 8,000.
  • In November 1910 ===>>> In November
  • one changing room and washing area meaning ===>>> one changing room and washing area, meaning

Football League and development

  • In 1920, Cardiff joined The Football League in the Second Division, helping attendances increase significantly.
  • This was partly due to the expense of replacing the sea-washed turf which had proved troublesome in the two years since it had been installed, with the playing surface being described as "treacherous". ===>>> This was partly due to the expense of replacing the sea-washed turf, which had proved troublesome and been described as "treacherous" in the two years since it had been installed.
  • the help of seed specialists Suttons to help improve the quality of the surface. ===>>> the help of seed specialists Suttons to improve the quality of the surface.
  • the board were keen ===>>> the board was keen
  • Boxing matches were soon being held at Ninian Park and the 1932 Cardiff Sports Carnival was based at the ground with the final of the 12-mile road race finishing with three laps around the stands. ===>>> Boxing matches were soon held at Ninian Park. The 1932 Cardiff Sports Carnival was also based at the ground, with the final of the 12-mile road race finishing with three laps around the stands.
I've expanded slightly to avoid the boxing remark being left as a standalone sentence. Kosack (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • they were unable to douse the fire and it destroyed the stand ===>>> they were unable to douse the fire before it destroyed the stand
  • the club's watchdog Jack and one of the club's cats ===>>> the club's watchdog Jack as well as one of the club's cats
  • in 1945 Ninian Park hosted its first European opposition when Dynamo Moscow played Cardiff as part of a tour of the United Kingdom ===>>> Ninian Park hosted its first European opposition when Dynamo Moscow played Cardiff as part of a tour of the United Kingdom in 1945
  • chosen as it was deemed to be the leading club in Wales ===>>> chosen for being deemed the leading club in Wales
  • The main stand was extended in 1947 at a cost of £9,000 with a new concrete terrace being added in front of the original seating area. ===>>> The main stand was extended in 1947 at a cost of £9,000, with a new concrete terrace being added in front of the original seating area.
  • £200,000 ===>>> A sum of £200,000 (don't start a sentence with a number)
  • and the removal of banking which severely reduced ===>>> and the removal of banking that severely reduced
  • He was taken to the ground's medical room where he received treatment, but doctors were unable to revive him. ===>>> He was taken to the ground's medical room to receive treatment; however, doctors were unable to revive him.

Downscaling, closure and demolition

  • In the late 1980s, increasing concerns over safety issues saw Ninian Park replaced as the main home venue of the Wales national side by Cardiff Arms Park, although a small number of matches were played there until it hosted its final international fixture on 13 October 1998 against Belarus. ===>>> In the late 1980s, increasing concerns over safety issues saw Ninian Park replaced as the main home venue of the Wales national side by Cardiff Arms Park. A small number of matches were played still there until it hosted its final international fixture on 13 October 1998 against Belarus.
  • over fears proposed safety improvements ===>>> over fears that proposed safety improvements
  • the Canton Stand which added ===>>> the Canton Stand, which added

Structure and facilities

  • had featured a 6 ft (1.8 m) fence to separate opposing fans and netting to stop objects being thrown until it was removed in 2006. ===>>> had featured a 6 ft (1.8 m) fence to separate opposing fans and netting to stop objects being thrown. It was removed in 2006.

Transport

  • Okay.

Other usage

  • Cardiff rugby club <<<=== Shouldn't this be capitalized?
  • The team had been founded by Cardiff City director Bob Grogan as a way of generating income by ensuring that Ninian Park was being used more frequently. ===>>> The team had been founded by Cardiff City director Bob Grogan as a way of generating income and ensure that Ninian Park was being used more frequently.
  • Initially the project proved a moderate success, having been set up at a cost of less than £50,000, ===>>> Initially the project proved a moderate success. Having been set up at a cost of less than £50,000,
  • The 1999 final of the WRU Challenge Cup was also held at the ground in which Swansea RFC defeated Llanelli RFC 37–10. ===>>> The 1999 final of the WRU Challenge Cup was also held at the ground, featuring Swansea RFC defeating Llanelli RFC 37–10.
  • which attracted crowds of more than 40,000 ===>>> that attracted crowds of more than 40,000
  • appeared at a National Youth Rally ===>>> appearing at a National Youth Rally
  • The concert had originally been scheduled for Stephen Stills but when he was unable to play, Marley filled the date. ===>>> The concert had originally been scheduled for Stephen Stills. When he was unable to play, Marley filled the date.

Records

  • only 57,510 was recorded ===>>> only an attendance of 57,510 was recorded
  • 1987 also included ===>>> That season also included

The prose is excellent, not just from a grammatical standpoint, but in terms of how easy it is to read. Will support once the mostly small grammatical issues above are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let me know if you have any questions on reasons for the above points. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review, I've made a start and done the first two sections. Should finish the rest up later. Kosack (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan77777: I've amended all of the issues you raised above and added comments on two points, one I'm unable to fulfill due to a lack of info and the other has been tweaked slightly. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the remark on the downscaling in the lead to "drastically reduced". Supporting! Good work. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lee Vilenski

[edit]

Sorry this one dropped off my radar. I'll take a look. Shame if it failed due to lack of activity. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Expanded the opening a bit more to make the opening slightly more substantial.

That's all I have on first look Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for picking this up so quickly Lee, I've addressed the points you raised above. Let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Wasn't much, the lede issues was the big one - The rest isn't that much, I'll support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

I don't want to archive this because it's generated a good amount of commentary, but we're almost at the two-month mark and it doesn't have enough. It's been on the Urgents list for a while and I'll need to archive soon if it doesn't attract some more review. --Laser brain (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Three more editors have very kindly given their support for this now. Will this be enough to complete the nomination? Kosack (talk) 06:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiff organised friendly matches against Crystal Palace and Bristol City, and Middlesbrough that were held at... - why the two "and"s here?
A left over fragment from a previous fix, amended now. Kosack (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The idea of installing a greyhound racing track.. - In Australia, I'd just say "greyhound track" - Fixed

Otherwise looks sound on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks for taking a look, I've fixed the two points you noted above. Kosack (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ianblair23

[edit]

Hi Kosack, an excellent article. I have corrected a few links already.

  • During the 1958 British Empire and Commonwealth Games held in Cardiff, Ninian Park hosted the show-jumping championships. add that this was an exhibition sport at these Games - Added
  • A trial event to inform 1960 Summer Olympics team selection was also hosted at the ground in May 1960. Was this a trail event for the equestrian events or for an another sport?

Apart from that, it is all good from me. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Ianblair23:, I've amended the two points above. Kosack (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kosack, I have had another read through and my comments are below:
Construction and early years
  • They were offered the ground on an initial seven-year lease with a yearly rent of £90 link Pound sterling - Done
  • Harry Bradshaw, secretary of the Southern Football League, inspected the ground ahead of the 1910–11 season sharper link to 1910–11 Southern Football League - Done
  • The first competitive match played at Ninian Park took was the opening match of the 1910–11 season, remove "took" - Done
  • Wales national football team, replacing the Cardiff Arms Park remove "the" - Done
  • It hosted its first international fixture on 6 March 1911, a 2–2 draw against Scotland in front of 17,000 spectators add a link to 1910–11 British Home Championship - Done
Football League and development
  • Linking the term manager to a list of the club's managers isn't a typical choice in football related articles. The term manager may be more pertinent perhaps? The mayoral point above is similar to this as well. Kosack (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Downscaling, closure and demolition
  • hosted its final international fixture on 13 October 1998 against Belarus change to 14 October as per this and link UEFA Euro 2000 qualifying Group 1 - Done
  • following an FA Cup tie against Queens Park Rangers link 1989–90 FA Cup#Third round proper
  • between Wales and Belgium to the Cardiff Arms Park remove "the" - Done
  • Cardiff's victory over Leeds United in the FA Cup in January 2002 link 2001–02 FA Cup#Third round proper
  • The last ever football match played by Cardiff at Ninian Park was a 3–0 defeat to Ipswich Town on 25 April 2009.[67] The final senior player to score at the ground was Jon Stead, then of Ipswich Town; the last player for Cardiff to score at the ground was Ross McCormack in a 3–1 victory over Burnley in the penultimate senior game at Ninian Park. link 2008–09 Cardiff City F.C. season#Championship
  • A photo of the new housing estate where the ground once stood would be great if you have one. - Added
Other
  • American football match featuring the Cardiff Tigers team add "in 1986" - Done
Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian, I've implemented the majority of your points above. I've left a couple as I fear they may be bordering on WP:EASTEREGG links. Kosack (talk) 10:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Thanks Kosack. A superb effort! Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2019 [37].

King brown snake

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a big nasty Aussie critter. Have scoured sources and it is about as comprehensive as I can make it. I think it is within striking distance of FA-hood. I'll fix stuff up quick. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the map was made many years ago by someone other than me. I have looked at the IUCN redlist map and it matches and have modified the page to indicate same. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
got 'em Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if this photo[38] showing the whole snake would be better as infobox image?
that was the orginal image. I wondered whether the snake was dead as its eyes looked a bit cloudy....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader seems to only have photos of live snakes, but hard to say, he seems to not be active anymore, otherwise he could be asked. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked anyway...you never know...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current infobox image is also nice, but since it actually shows the animal in its habitat, I wonder if it would be better under the habitat section, and then the photo of a captive snake there could maybe be moved down to the captivity section, where it is more relevant?
the captive snake is slightly out of focus and is in an unusual yellow-orange light. The one in the description section is better. I am feeling a bit frustrated about the images in the article TBH. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I meant the captive snake seems misplaced in a section about distribution, would seem better under the captivity section? That part of the article is also quite bare. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 1 could get a citation.
damn - lots of sources describe it as the largest, and others note that hte taipan is the longest. Now I can't remember where I saw them discussed relative to each other! Still looking.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "described Pseudechis darwiniensis" and "distinguishing P. darwinioides", not sure if this is a typo or if we are talking about different names? The latter name seems rather unlikely, though, "similar to Darwin"?
a typo - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You present some writers but not others.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lineage of smaller snake)" Snakes?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with no general agreement on other species described until 2005" Not sure what is meant here. Other related species? Relation with other species?
I meant older taxa that had been described as separate species, but no-one used those names at all...so there was a general agreement...that they were synonymous. Changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to a lineage of large snake found" Snakes?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "determined that the P. australis" Why the?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and recommends dropping the name and the old term "Darwin brown snake"" What was proposed instead?
"mulga snake" - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is known as atetherr-ayne-wene "budgerigar-eater"" Shouldn't a comma, colon, or similar separate the two names?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems more synonyms are listed in the taxonomy section than are in the infobox.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the taxonomy section goes into a lot of measurement and danger stuff, but is it really relevant there instead of elsewhere?
the items mentioned are used to explain the names - not sure how we can rejig Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Made more sense on second read. FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is up to two metres" Elsewhere you abbreviate to m and convert.
aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scale terminology is pretty esoteric, perhaps the locations could be explained in parenthesis?
found one more link - but that is why there is a see also link to Snake_scale#Nomenclature_of_scales to assist with looking at it all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I won't press the issue, but in dinosaur FACs one is always ask to provide in-text explanations even though there are links. I recall there is a guideline saying "don't make the reader chase links", but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added something for the more obscure ones Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Within their arid to semi-arid parts of their range" The?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species is tolerant of cold and active at night across most its range, although those occurring" Since you say "the species", saying "those" is ambiguous, perhaps say those populations or individuals instead.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the incubating temperature has been recorded as between 22 and 32 °C (72 and 90 °F).[36] They average" Though you of course mean the eggs, the preceding sentence is about their temperature, so you should mention the eggs again ("the eggs average").
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "watching it bleed blood" Blood seems redundant.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If the snake were killed" Was.
that is the subjunctive construction...but doesn't really fit so fixed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The victims should move as little as possible, and to be conveyed to a hospital or clinic" Why to?
a leftover before a rewording. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "assuming a king brown snake agent is reasonable if a snakebite victim had a raised apTT and signs of haemolysis." Why change in tense?
a leftover before a rewording. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "high proportion of bites on occurring on upper limbs." Is the first on needed?
no. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He reported later that he had impulsively decided to commit suicide by placing his hand in a bag and stirring it up" Not sure what this means, was the snake in the bag?
yes. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • "called "chewi"" Do we really need this information?
I think it breaks up the repetitiveness of the prose...and it's cute too Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " When using 0.1% bovine serum albumin in saline rather than saline alone, The venom" Something wrong here, should it be "the venom"?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use both ise and ize endings.
In Australia we tend to use British spelling plus "-ize". I keep forgetting to change... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "member of the genus Pseudechis (black snakes)" perhaps state the common name when you mention the genus name in the article body too?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes look good, still wondering about the footnote source and if the captive snake image should be moved down to the captivity section. Then I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved down the image and commented out the footnote (I can't find the source that specifically says it now) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thx - snakes are harder to photograph I think, so good photos are often strictly licenced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Ref 32: WorldCat gives 1996 as the publication year. Also, for consistency, you should add publisher location. Incidentally, I must say that "Reader's Digest" sits rather sheepishly among so many scholarly sources, but perhaps Underhill, the author, has the credentials?
I didn't add this. Musing on it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC) I have removed it - the first segment it cited is duplicated, and the second comment on deprecation is patently false as the name is the most common common name. I have a segment on why the name is problematic too in the taxonomy section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 39: Publisher location missing, and p. should be pp.
added and pp'ed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 45: Requires access date
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 49: Maybe requires access date?
a periodical so not added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 57: pub. location again
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality/reliability: no issues, beyond my curiosity about the RD.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aa77zz

[edit]

Lead

  • "Its alternative common name is the mulga snake, though it lives in many habitats apart from mulga, found in most habitats except rainforest." This sentence is mangled.
yeah, last bit got inadvertently left in. Taken it out now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its main effect is on striated muscle tissue, causing paralysis from muscle damage, and also commonly affects blood clotting (coagulopathy). " perhaps "but it also commonly affects blood clotting ..."
I have mixed feelings on this as it the facts are not exactly contrastive. But the run-on "and" isn't great either. Am musing on this one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Venom

  • "Isolated in 1979, mulgotoxin consists of a single polypeptide chain of 122 amino-acid residues ..." citing Leonardi et al 1970 1979. I do not think it is worth including the name 'mulgotoxin a' here. The authors give the (approximate) aa composition and (approximate) size but do not sequence the N-term nor do they test for phospholipase activity. Without the aa sequence info it is difficult to relate the name to the many phospholipases sequenced in later articles such as here and here (all of which contain 118 aa).
So remove the name or remove the sentence? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you delete the sentence and rejig. Mulgotoxin is not well characterised in the paper and the name is not used in important later studies. The amino acid count is also almost certainly incorrect. A sequence alignment of 14 PA2 isoforms extracted from the venom is given in Table 2 of Takasaki et al 1990. The polypeptides contain either 117 or 118 amino acids. (I suspect Leonardi et al analysed a mixture of isoforms and the techniques available at the time would have only given an approximate size.) - Aa77zz (talk) 11:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I did wonder - I tried this to rejig Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite containing a number of agents with phospholipase A2 activity, king brown snake venom exhibits no neurotoxicity.[54]" where 54 is Georgieva et al 2011. The statement isn't supported by the source. On p.2459 "Pa-1G is an exception to this rule and it is the first acidic phospholipase A2 with high neurotoxicity" and on p.2460 "Neurotoxicity can be supposed due to the presence of PLA2s in the venom." Perhaps "little phospholipase A2 activity". Also consider making more use of Georgieva et al 2011. "However, myotoxicity is the major pharmacological effect following the P. australis bites.66 This can be explained by a strong and direct myotoxic action of a large quantity of PLA2s on the muscles. Myotoxicity is independent of the enzymatic activity.67"
Funnily enough I did read that paper a few times and muse on expanding from it more. I will read and think. Late here and I need to sleep. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)changed to "little" neurotoxicity. Regarding second point, I had already written "These proteins are directly toxic on muscle tissue due to their sheer volume in the venom,...." (directly assuming not mediated by enzymes...?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

This section has been frustrating. It is clearly an iconic animal across multiple indigenous nations in Australia, but I can't for the life of me find one source stating as such, or anything encompassing at all (which this section desperately needs) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More on venom

  • "Pseudechetoxin (PsTx) and pseudecin (Pdc) are two proteins that block cyclic nucleotide–gated ion channels..."[30] - should be page 116 (not 115) and you don't need to define the acronyms.
removed acronyms and changed page (oops...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
went with the latter Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks fine now - reading the venom papers brought back memories of struggling with peptide sequences from Edman degradation - this was before the introduction of DNA sequencing. - Aa77zz (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

heh, thanks for that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp

[edit]

Hi Cas Liber. Working my way through the article...
Lead:

  • I agree with Aa77zz above that "Its alternative common name is the mulga snake, though it lives in many habitats apart from mulga, found in most habitats except rainforest." is unclear. For one thing, I'm not sure reading this whether it's the king brown snake or the mulga snake that is found in most habitats except rainforest.
see above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, reading again I see the king brown snake and the mulga snake are one and the same, so what I wrote above is not a valid point of confusion. Still, the last bit "found in most habitats except rainforest" tacked on after the comma is not very clear. Maybe "; the snake is found in most habitats except rainforest" would be clearer. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
have removed offending segment Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The venom is not as potent as those of Australia's other dangerous snakes, but it is when delivered in large quantities." Unclear and possibly contradictory. Literally it says that the venom is not as potent as that of other dangerous snakes, but that the venom can be as potent as that of other dangerous snakes. More comments to follow soon. Moisejp (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of "potent" as "per gram" or something - like the LD50. So the venom itself much less potent than many other snakes, but due to the sheer volume of venom injected it is still pretty dangerous (if not potent as such...?) e.g. see Potency (pharmacology) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do understand what it's meant to mean, but feel the literal meaning of what is currently written is not precise. How about something like, "those of Australia's other dangerous/poisonous snakes, but in large quantities can still be lethal/dangerous"? Moisejp (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
changed to "but it is delivered in quantities large enough to cause severe effects." - could be "severe illness/injury etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yeah that is ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy:

  • "Australian herpetologists Richard W. Wells and C. Ross Wellington described Cannia centralis in 1985 from a 1.3 m (4 ft 3 in) specimen collected 8 km (5 mi) north of Tennant Creek in 1977, distinguishing it on the basis of a narrow head,[10] however it is not regarded as distinct."
  • I suggest the punctuation "...narrow head; however, it is not regarded as distinct." The bit introduced by "however" is an independent clause, and there should not be a simple comma after "narrow head".
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes - they said it was distinct on account of its narrow head. Other authors haven't recognised this. Could change to "the distinction was not supported by other authors". I will see if there is anything else I can find..Wells, Wellington and Hoser named numbers of new species with little evidence and have been roundly criticised by herpetologists. (see page 10 where they give reasons for dismissing Cannia plus a host of other names) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have gone with that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Description:

  • It may be a matter of preference—and if you disagree with me I won't insist—but in the first paragraph of this section there are an awful lot of sentences (actually all but one) starting with "The". Would you be against changing any of them around for more variation within the paragraph?
Guilty as charged. Usually I hate this and I try to avoid. I have tried varying the wording Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Behaviour:

  • "It is more active during the day in cooler climates and at night in hotter climates,[24] particularly the evening during hot spells. It is less active during the middle of the day and between midnight and dawn, retiring to crevices in the soil, old animal burrows, or under rocks or logs"
  • "particularly in the evening in hotter climates" feels awkward and unclear to me. Just before that it's talking about cool vs. hot climates, including the statement that it's more active at night in hotter climates. Then when I get to the next bit, I'm not sure whether "evening" and "night", and "hotter climates" and "hot spells", are supposed to be synonymous, in which case it seems repetitive. Also whether "hot spells" is supposed also be true of hot spells in cooler climates; if so, then there may be contradiction between the blanket statement that in cooler climates it's most active in the day, and the statement that it can be most active in the evening (is the evening included in day or night? It's not clear). Maybe the word "particularly" also adds to the lack of clarity.
  • "It is less active during the middle of the day and between midnight and dawn" is additionally confusing when added to the confusion of the previous sentence. Moisejp (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(belatedly) I did rejig the order of this - does it make more sense now? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the early Southern Hemisphere spring in southwest Western Australia, mid-spring in the Eyre Peninsula and with the Wet Season in the north of the country" I wonder if there is anything you can wiki-link for "Southern Hemisphere spring". I couldn't immediately parse that sentence, but eventually I figured it out. Maybe it's just me. If there's nothing to be done about this one, no worries. Moisejp (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have rjigged the order so that it makes more sense now (?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say "average xxx in length and xxx in width" (not "average xxx long and xxx wide") but possibly it's a regional difference in English? If what you currently have sounds perfectly normal to you, no problem, just checking in case. :-) Moisejp (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, read that through....I think you're right and changed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Venom:

  • "Its venom is not particularly toxic to mice, but it is produced in huge quantities". I could be wrong (and if so, apologies) but from the way it is written, I wonder whether there is an "if" missing from the second part of the sentence. If this is the case, it may suffer from the same issue that we discussed before of "The venom is not as potent as those of Australia's other dangerous snakes, but it is if delivered in large quantities." If so, could we edit it similarly to how we did for that sentence?
need to think about this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My problem here is the next few sentences talk about the huge amount of venom produced - I went with removing the "not particularly toxic" segment as I guess it can be construed as subjective Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 2.5 m (8 ft 2 in) long king brown snake milked by John Cann produced 1350 mg, and then 580, 920, and 780 mg at three, four, and five months after the first milking." Do you think it would be worthwhile to introduce John Cann with his occupation or credentials? Moisejp (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aha the Snake Man of La Perouse....added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They add assuming a king brown snake agent is reasonable if a snakebite victim had a raised aPTT and signs of haemolysis." I'm not sure what this ("They add assuming") means in the context of what precedes it. Is there a way to reword it in the article to make it clearer?
Okay, how is this then (only took me 8 hours to post that due to dodgy internet!!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though the amount injected makes it more hazardous": Does this mean "depending on the amount of venom released when they bite, they [or "their bites"] can sometimes be more hazardous"? If so, I'd like to suggest what I wrote may be clearer. Moisejp (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
yes - added "potentially large". Does that help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through:

  • "Johnston and colleagues", "Razavi and colleagues": I understand in journal articles it's probably usual to not use first names here, but in encyclopedia (Wikipedia) articles—whose audience may be less academic—I wonder if there's also a strong precedent to not include first names here. Just checking. If you're confident it's good as is, no worries.
I have their first names in now, but I can't find what subspecialties of medicine they are in Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnston and colleagues propose giving antivenom immediately if king brown snake envenoming is suspected, as a two-hour delay did not prevent muscle damage." All the verbs in the second half of the paragraph are in the present tense except did, which is perfectly fine semantically. But I wonder if you could add a little more context here to "did not prevent muscle damage" (for example, was this based on the study of a single occurrence in 2013, or based on a study of many incidents that had been reported over a longer period of time?) to make the verb tense change less jarring for the reader. Moisejp (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
added a bit of context - is that enough? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all of my comments. Please do follow up with your thoughts on the mice question above. Then if you resolve my most recent points above, I think I'll be ready to support. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 03:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article didn't come together as easily as some others I have worked on. Your changes look ok. Have been busy IRL but getting to them Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I’ll have another look ASAP, hopefully this weekend. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I'm happy to support now, based on prose. Although I don't know much about snakes, my layman's impression is that this also seems quite comprehensive. Moisejp (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2019 [39].

Marwan I

[edit]
Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Marwan I, the fourth Umayyad caliph. His reign was short, less than a year, but impactful—he founded the Marwanid house which ruled the Caliphate for a further 65 years. Having been expelled with his whole clan from Medina, where he had served as the right hand of Caliph Uthman and governor for Caliph Mu'awiya I, Marwan reestablished Umayyad power across Syria and Egypt after it was reduced to the environs of Damascus as a result of the Second Muslim Civil War and set up his sons Abd al-Malik and Abd al-Aziz for great political success. I started work on the article in January 2017. It passed GAR in March 2019 and has appeared on the DYK column. I've been editing it on and off since then and believe it is ready for the Main Page. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]

OK, I know nothing about this stuff, so these are purely procedural tweaks, I can't comment on the accuracy of the substantive content:

Lead
  • when Caliph Ali is mentioned, it is worth mentioning that he was the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad, as the history of Islam is pretty scratchy during this period, with members of Muhammad's family fighting each other for the spoils
Thanks for reviewing this Peacemaker. Mentioned that he was a cousin—not sure if son-in-law is necessary. Uthman was also a son-in-law of Muhammad.
  • same with Caliph Mu'awiya I, it is worth stating he ended up as one of Muhammad's scribes
I don’t think this needs to be mentioned here. He’s much more relevant here as Marwan's kinsman and founder of the Umayyad Caliphate. For non-expert readers especially it would not be pertinent. Aisha is most relevant for being Muhammads wife, Ali for being his cousin, Talha for being a particularly close companion and all these things were directly relevant in the First Muslim Civil War. Muawiya is most famous for governing Syria, opposing Ali and founding the ruling dynasty to which he and Marwan belonged. Al Ameer (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As he was prepared to give allegiance" Who was prepared to give allegiance? Marwan or Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad? It isn't clear.
Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "loyalist tribes" loyal to whom?
Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the historian Clifford E. Bosworth"
Done.
Body
  • could we get Julian calendar years inserted, as well as CE, which are confusing to non-Muslims
Added (AD) next to CE. Al Ameer (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • to father al-Hakam ibn Abi al-As and mother Amina bint Alqama of the Banu Kinana tribe→ His father was al-Hakam ibn Abi al-As and his mother was Amina bint Alqama of the Banu Kinana tribe
Done.

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • link Nepotism
Done.
  • "the quarter of Marwan" was this a quarter of the city, or are you referring to his residence?
I’m assuming neighborhood, but I’m gonna look into this further. I doubt he controlled a whole quarter. Might revise to something like “sought safety with Marwan”.
  • "Upon Marwan's return to Syria from Egypt in 685, he had designated his sons" as the narrative has passed the point where he has died
Done.
  • "In the view of the historian Wilferd Madelung"
Done.

That is all I could find. I struggled a bit with the amount of unfamiliar names (which says more about me than anything else), but it otherwise reads very well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Peacemaker67. I’ve addressed the last of your points. A lot of these names I had to learn along the way. Some are more important than others, but I believe they each warrant a linked reference as they played important enough roles as commanders or advisers. Their articles also provide more details that give additional context and details about this period that would not fit in this article. —Al Ameer (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, very happy to support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Constantine

[edit]

Really happy to see another Umayyad caliph here. Will review over the next few days. Constantine ✍ 20:58, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • After a short term by Ali's son and successor the 'short term' is a bit unclear here; perhaps rephrase to the effect that Hasan was declared caliph in succession to his father, but Mu'awiya eventually prevailed, and provide a link to the Hasan–Muawiya treaty.
  • before serving two stints as governor of Medina for the uninitiated, it should be mentioned that Mu'awiya moved the capital to Damascus, and the centre of power of his regime was the province of Syria (with the implication that the governorship of Medina that Uthman held was a prestigious, but 'ordinary' gubernatorial position).
  • which was significantly larger than 'significantly more numerous than' (optional)
  • to the unusual step of naming his own son Yazid as heir to the caliphate during his own lifetime, to claim the caliphate based on the legitimacy of his father, abūʾl-jabābira (father of tyrants) because his son and grandsons later inherited the caliphal throne for a modern Western audience to understand this, it should be mentioned (a footnote would be fine) that the caliphal office was not originally hereditary, but elective, whence the accusations of tyranny habitually levelled against the Umayyads.

Otherwise I found nothing amiss, the article is very comprehensive, and, as usual, well written. I did a few copyedits here and there, nothing major. I will have a look in my own sources to see whether I missed anything, but otherwise, after the above points are dealt with, I will be happy to support. Constantine ✍ 15:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I also really wanted to express my appreciation for the map. Really well done. Could you please upload it also in svg format, for use/adaptation by others? Constantine ✍ 15:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Thanks for the taking the time to look this over and your helpful suggestions. Please check my latest revisions to see if your points have been addressed. As for the map, I created it on Publisher and Paint and don't see an option on how to save it as an .svg file on either program. I'm still an amateur with this stuff. Any advice on how best to do this? --Al Ameer (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestions have definitely been taken care of, and better than expected (I hazily half-remembered that someone had some comments on Medina after Mu'awiya's triumph and Marwan's appointment, glad you dug Wellhausen up). As stated, I will check my sources whether there is something that I have missed, and get back to you. On the map, yes, now I see that it is a bitmap and not vectorized (which is a compliment, at low resolution it fooled me). Let me have a look, I may be able to cook up a vectorized version quickly. Constantine ✍ 17:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: Here you go: a vectorized version of the map. Please have a look whether I missed something. I did a few tweaks (Arminiya as a province, not a sub-province, Derbent outside the caliphate at this time) but otherwise tried to be faithful to your original. Constantine ✍ 19:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow amazing Cplakidas, how did you do that so quickly! (I'm lurking for now, but will probably review this soon) HaEr48 (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I second HaEr48 on that. Very nice work ;) --Al Ameer (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was easy, after finding an almost identical base map, the only issue was copying over the data from Al Ameer's map. And now it can be used for other maps related to the early caliphates (unfortunately the base map does not include the western Maghreb and the Iberian peninsula). Constantine ✍ 08:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son:I looked around but did not find anything really missing. Of the major reference works for the period, the only one that appears to be missing is Rotter's Die Umayyaden und der zweite Bürgerkrieg (680-692), but I doubt it will contain anything not covered already. I also found, if you want to include it, a brief discussion on Marwan's succession in the legal/customary framework of early Islam, in Abd al-Aziz Duri, Early Islamic Institutions, pp. 22–25, who classifies it as a contest between the "Islamic principle" (the 'best Muslim' should be caliph, here that would be Ibn al-Zubayr), the strict hereditary principle (in which case Mu'awiya II's successor should have been Khalid) and the 'tribal principle', of selecting the eldest and most capable from the tribe or wider clan, which led to Marwan's selection. I can send you the text if you want to incorporate this somehow. That's all, and as this is optional, I will support the nomination regardless. Constantine ✍ 15:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Interesting find. Please send me the text and I'll incorporate it. And thank you for your efforts and support. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Please check the info I added and let me know your thoughts. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Al Ameer son: Your additions look good to me, well done. Constantine ✍ 11:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • File:Medina_1916.jpg: if the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago?
Found the author: Bernhard Moritz, died 1939. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: For this photo I could not find the original author/photographer. As it was created/published between 1890 and 1900 does the PD-US tag here suffice even without the author or should it be "PD-old-assumed"? Also, I'm not sure what is meant by explicit tag for the minaret. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Was it published between 1890 and 1900, or was it created in that period? PD-US applies in the former case but not the latter. As to explicit tag, as Syria does not have freedom of panorama, we need to include a tag that indicates the public-domain status of the minaret. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by AhmadLX

[edit]

General comments

  • Per MOS, diacritical marks should be avoided, except for the first sentence in the lead and 'ayn in middle of a word: (sahaba instead of ṣaḥāba, rashidun instead of rāshidūn etc.)
If the MoS Arabic indeed recommends that we should drop the diacritics from all italicized Arabic terms except the lead sentence, I’m not sure if I agree with it—unless it’s strictly because of potential software compatibility problems. They’re truer to the original Arabic term and are helpful to readers—at least those familiar with diacritics. Is this a major sticking point or could we leave this be for now? For the record, I wouldn’t normally italicize Rashidun as it’s a proper word, but since it’s part of a quote in this case I kept it exactly as Donner spelled it. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Anything in quotes is of course exempt from it, but MOS compliance is part of the criteria. Also, as Donner says, anyone who doesn't understand these won't need them, and anyone who understands them also won't need them ;)AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I read WP:MOSAR correctly, it just discourages (not ban) diacritics and give authors some wiggle room. Personally, I feel for common words like "sahaba" using diacritics is a little too much, but it is very helpful for less commonly known words such as "khayṭ bāṭil" or "ṭarid ibn ṭarid" to be able to know the original Arabic word. Of course, deciding which words are common enough and which can benefit from diacritics is a bit subjective, which is why I suggest letting authors decide. HaEr48 (talk) 17:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: the page you are referring to is not a policy page. I was talking of MOS:ISLAM, specifically MOS:ISLAM#Arabic_transliteration. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: Yes, I was also looking at MOS:AR instead of MOS:ISLAM. I still don't agree here, but will fight that battle another day ;) I removed the diacritics from the Arabic terms outside of those in quotations. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Donner (2014), p. 106, Marwan was maternal brother of Uthman; should be mentioned.
Intriguing, but likely a mistake. I added and removed it previously as I found it fishy since Uthman was Marwan’s senior by between 33 to 50 years (depending on the source). Indeed, no other source I came across corroborated it. I think it’s a rare error on Donner’s part, probably stemming from Amina’s kunya being “Umm Uthman”. In no other RS have I found Uthman’s mother to be Amina bint Alqama. His mother was Arwa bint Kurayz of Abd Shams. Moreover, none of the sources discussing Marwan mention that he was a half-brother of Uthman—which, if true, would have been an unavoidably notable fact to neglect—they only refer to him as a cousin. This may have also been confused with al-Walid ibn Uqba who was Uthman’s maternal half-brother and also his (distant) paternal cousin. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He cites Ibn Sa'd, but yes, I checked at a few other places and it is Arwa. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any info on his activities/life under the first two caliphs?
He emerges during Uthman’s reign from the shadows it seems. I’ll look into al-Tabari to see if there’s anything notable. Let me know if you have anything from your end. It wouldn’t be surprising; the Islamic sources hold that his father al-Hakam was exiled by the prophet and according to some, he may have remained exiled until Uthman’s reign. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea; maybe something in Ansab, but I can't read Arabic. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "confiscation of crown lands in Iraq drove the Quraysh and the dispossessed elites of Kufa and Egypt to oppose the caliph." Crown lands? Does this refer to the lands of Persian King? Also, it should be clarified why was this a big deal.
Yes, the sawafi in Arabic, which had been considered communal property for the benefit of the conquering Muslim troops. I’ll elaborate more on this tomorrow when I have my sources. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: I added a footnote about the crown lands and why they were important to the Kufans. —Al Ameer (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marwan recommended a violent response to the rebels." Narrative goes very fast here. It should be mentioned that the caliph was besieged by rebels from Iraq and Egypt.
You’re right. Filled in the gaps now, I believe. Al Ameer (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Uthman publicly recanted his behavior and desisted from military action". I don't think desist is the right word here.
Just scrapped this sentence altogether. The material I just added together with the material I kept should suffice. Al Ameer (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marwan's first dismissal from the governorship was the result of his criticism of the caliph's declaration that Ziyad ibn Abihi,..." It is only that Mu'awiya told him so. It may not necessarily have been the reason. Madelung relates the story, but doesn't comment himself on the reasons of dismissal. It would be better it present it as it occurs in the source: that upon Marwan's inquiring, Muawiya said so and so.
Done. Al Ameer (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no mention of Marwan encouraging Ibn al-Zubayr to refuse settlement proposal of Yazid, or prior to that his threats to Husayn.
I only saw in Madelung (p. 348) that Marwan secretly encouraged Ibn al-Zubayr to claim the caliphate with the Machiavellian idea that this would contribute to the downfall of the Sufyanids and that Marwan would then replace them and deal with Ibn al-Zubayr later. It all seems rather far-fetched and Madelung doesn't give us any indication where he got this particular bit of info. Do you have another source that discusses this? And for that matter the threats to Husayn? Al Ameer (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Madelung is a crackpot. But I got this info from Wellhausen. Let me look. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wellhausen p. 148, Tab. v 19, pp.190-191. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for pointing this out. Al Ameer (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of these ashrāf, such as Husayn ibn Numayr, had attempted to reach a similar arrangement with Ibn al-Zubayr" It was only Ibn Numayr, and the cited source is clear on that.
Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to EI2, it is not certain whether Marwan sent the expedition to Hejaz. This article seems to be quite certain, perhaps based on Yauqbi. EI2's assessment should be given preference.
Tabari (vol 20, pp. 161–163) also holds that Marwan sent Hubaysh on the Hejaz expedition before his death, though it isn’t clear if Marwan died by the time this army was crushed at Rabadha. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS, Muhammad should be mentioned just by name or as Islamic prophet Muhammad.
Done. Al Ameer (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • E. J. Brill & Brill
It’s Brill, but the Encyclopedia of Islam templates are E. J. Brill. Should we change it in the template since it’s the same publisher? And since Cplakidas toiled over these useful templates, his input would also be appreciated here. Al Ameer (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think template should be left as is, since changing it would create inconsistencies in other articles; also for the one below. Thanks.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 02:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: So then change Brill to E. J. Brill and SUNY Press to State University of New York Press? Or leave it all alone? Al Ameer (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: Should be consistent: I would prefer E. J. Brill and State University of New York Press. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 03:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Al Ameer (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • State University of New York Press & SUNY Press
Similar issue as above; The History of al-Tabari templates have the written-out version, while in the other sources the same publisher is abbreviated. Which should it be? Al Ameer (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Albany, New York & Albany
Done, went with the former.
  • I. B. Tauris and Company & I. B. Tauris
Done, went with the latter.
  • Donner, Fred M. & Donner Fred.
Done.
  • Rihan, Mohammad (2014): location=London & New York
Done.
  • Donner, Fred (2014): chapter range needed.
Done.
  • Duri, Abd al-Aziz (2011): Translator name needed.
Done.
  • Duri, Abd al-Aziz (2011): Google Books link.
Done.
  • Mayer, L. A. (1952): Journal name instead of publisher name: "Israel Exploration Journal"
Fixed.
  • Della Vida, Giorgio Levi (2000). (Banu Umayya): Co-author Bosworth, C. E.
Done.
  • Della Vida, Giorgio Levi (2000). (Banu Umayya): pp=837-839; title= Umayya b. 'Abd Shams
Fixed.
  • Della Vida, Giorgio Levi (2000) (ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān): Co-author Khoury, R. G.
Done.
  • Both instances of "Della Vida 2000" link to "Banu Umayya": one should link to "Uthman b. Affan"
Fixed.
  • All sources high quality.
  • I have no issue with different ISBN formats.
Made them consistent anyway.
@AhmadLX: Indeed, hard to believe ;) As always, your thoroughness is appreciated. Al Ameer (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Marwan led his horsemen through Medina and launched a rear assault against the Medinese defenders fighting Ibn Uqba in the city's eastern outskirts." is not in Wellhausen 1927, p. 156.
Done, I added Vaglieri's "al-Harra" entry in EI2. Al Ameer (talk) 14:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotting that. Al Ameer (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From HaEr48 (support)

[edit]
  • Lead: "including Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, a rival claimant to the caliphate": I think this anachronistic, because Ibn al-Zubayr did not claim the caliphate until after Yazid died?
Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: In the months that followed, Marwan reasserted Umayyad rule over the pro-Zubayrid territories of Egypt, Palestine and northern Syria, while keeping the Qays in check in Upper Mesopotamia: I think to put this in context, the loss of those territories needed to be mentioned before talking about reclaiming them.
Done. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marwan was born in 623 or 626 CE: any Hijri year? Also suggest adding Hijri date/year for other key dates, such as accession, death. This is commonly done in scholarly article about early Muslim rulers.
Done. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • in this capacity Marwan "doubtless helped" in the revision "of what became the canonical text of the Qur'an" in Uthman's reign: Is there any article that can be wikilinked here (about Uthman's compilation)?
Unfortunately, there isn't a specific article about this. I wikilinked the "Compilation" section of Quran until such an article is started. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • as a result of Marwan's pervasive influence, which they blamed for the caliph's controversial decisions: I know the next sentence includes arguments about the lack of specificity, but can we have more detail here? E.g. which of Uthman's decisions? Or which traditional Muslim sources/historians put the blame on Marwan?
Between all the sources I've researched, it's been difficult to find anything specific of note, other than the trivial. Originally, this nagged at me because I couldn't find anything in the English-language sources (even in Madelung who's almost unabashedly ill-disposed towards the Umayyads) until I came across Donner (2014) who explicitly notes the lack of specific charges and the likelihood of these being polemical digs towards Marwan and the Umayyads in general in the anti-Umayyad traditional Muslim sources (whether Shi'a or early Abbasid) and at the same time could reflect an attempt by the (Abbasid-era Sunni?) sources to salvage the reputation of Uthman (who they classified as one of the four 'Rashidun' caliphs) by pinning the blame on Marwan. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uthman was assassinated by the rebels, which became one of the major contributing factors to the First Muslim Civil War: I think how it becomes a civil war can be explained a little bit more, if I recall correctly there was a dispute about punishing those responsible for the killing.
I expanded this a bit without getting too much in the weeds. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • He used that occasion to kill one of A'isha's partisans, a prominent companion of Muhammad Talha ibn Ubayd Allah, whom he held responsible for Uthman's death: Are there more details about this, e.g. how it happened or what was the reaction? Just curious how one intentionally kills someone in their own side during a battle without causing disorder or outrage.
Added what I could find, i.e. that Marwan shot Talha with an arrow that fatally struck the sciatic vein in his leg and did so when it appeared their side was on the cusp of defeat and A'isha would be in a weak position to call Marwan to account for the murder. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ali was assassinated in January 661: by whom?
Added. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to abandon their arrangement" : what arrangement?
The funeral arrangement. Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • who entered Kufa victoriously : How about "entered Hasan's capital at Kufa", to describe the significance of the city?
Done. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • " marking the establishment of the Umayyad Caliphate" was he also declared caliph in Kufa & did he receive allegiance there?
Complicated and perhaps unnecessary to delve into detail in this article. Mu'awiya was already recognized as caliph by his Syrian supporters and Amr b. al-As in Egypt in 657 and/or 658. His treaty with Hasan months after the assassination of Hasan's father Caliph Ali and Mu'awiya's gaining of homage in Kufa marked the establishment of his rule over the whole Caliphate. I could work a footnote here, I just don't want to keep adding information (other than the necessary context) that takes focus away from Marwan. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • the fatherless Ziyad ibn Abihi, Ibn Amir's successor in Basra, as his paternal half-brother: Does this mean Muawiya claimed that Abu Sofyan was Ziyad's biological father, or did he just declare an adopted relationship?
By "his paternal half-brother" it means the son of Mu'awiya's father Abu Sufyan from a different mother. I replaced with an explicit reference to Abu Sufyan and filled in a quote later in the same section about Mu'awiya's possible motive in adopting Ziyad as his paternal brother. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marwan's nephew, Amr ibn Uthman ibn Affan: If Uthman is Marwan's cousin, Uthman's son would be a removed cousin rather than a nephew? Or is this referring to the theory that Uthman and Marwan were half-brothers?
Removed nephew. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afterward, Marwan participated in the funeral : Did Hasan end up buried beside the Prophet, or somewhere else?
Clarified, it was somewhere else. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marwan was among the most senior Umayyads at a time: is it "most senior" by age, by experience, or?
Both, and clarified. Actually, looking in Bosworth again, he says that (by the end of 683) Marwan was the most senior Umayyad and the only surviving member of the clan to have known Muhammad. I might try to fit this tidbit somewhere as well. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After Mu'awiya died in 680: also mention the accession of Yazid here
It's implied by the opponents refusal to recognize Yazid and the previous info about Mu'awiya's designation of Yazid as successor, but I mentioned it more explicitly toward the end of the sentence. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the first para of "Leader of the Umayyads in Medina" is cited directly to a translation of al-Tabari (Tabari might be too outdated to be an RS on its own). Do we have modern sources mentioning this? Especially the rather detailed account of Yazid's meeting with Husayn.
Wellhausen's in there for extra measure. I try to directly reference Tabari only sparingly or use the annotations rather than translated original text, but in this case I could not find the details elsewhere. AhmadLX Do you know of any modern secondary sources that mention the episode with Husayn? Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[39] can be replaced with Wellhausen/Donner/Hawting, [44] with Vaglieri (Husayn in EI2). [42] is fine with Wellhausen, you can rmv [43] (Tabari) if you want, but I think it is unnecessary. That leaves [45] and I think Tabari is enough for that, but if you want replace it, it can be done with Jafri's Origins and Early Development or Ayoub's Redemptive suffering. Google books doesn't have page numbers for the former, so the formula is then same as with Dixon: finding page numbers with 1979 edition's snippet view (available on Battle of KArbala article).AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate it Ahmad. I kept 39 because it's not cited directly to Tabari but rather to I. K. A. Howard's note. I removed 43, and kept the rest. That leaves only 3 out of 9 citations in the first passage of this section cited directly to Tabari and I believe that should be fine. After all, Tabari is most useful for filling in these kinds of gaps and, along with al-Baladhuri, is the mainstay of modern scholarship on Islamic history. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter died several weeks into his reign: mention the fact that he did not have heirs or designated successors.
Done. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the governors of the Syrian junds (military districts) of Palestine, Homs and Qinnasrin subsequently gave their allegiance to Ibn al-Zubayr, who proclaimed a rival caliphate based in Mecca." I think it flows better if first you introduce (1) IAZ proclaiming himself caliph and then (2) the governors changing side, in that order, rather than the opposite.
Yes I noticed this earlier and sought to rearrange it. It's now clarified in the previous section that Ibn al-Zubayr declared his caliphate on the departure of the Syrians from the Hejaz and gained recognition in most provinces of the Caliphate. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a result, Marwan "despaired over any future for the Umayyads as rulers"...": From reading Second Fitna, it appears at this stage Umayyad control only remained in parts of Syria. I think it's worth mentioning that first to illustrate the desperateness of the situation for the Umayyads.
Clarified. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...forming the new super-tribe of Yaman": Maybe just "forming a new super-tribe"? The name Yaman and Yamani was already introduced.
I think it's necessary to keep "Yaman" in this case for clarity since we did not mention previously that it was the result of an alliance of the Quda'a/Kalb and the Qahtan tribal confederations until this moment. That's when the Yaman truly came to existence. Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the victory at Marj Rahit, Marwan faced numerous challenges to his rule throughout the Umayyads' former domains: This is a rather vague description, I suggest being more specific like: "Despite having won a victory at Marj Rahit and consolidating Umayyad power in XXX, Marwan's authority is still not recognized in the rest of the Umayyad's former domains", better describing the limits of his powers at this time.
Done (with some modification). Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • to conquer Iraq from the Zubayrids and other anti-Umayyad factions: Can we name the other "anti-Umayyad factions"?
Done. For the record, at this time, both components of Iraq (Basra and Kufa) were under Zubayrid allegiance, but in Kufa you had partisans of Ali and his family agitating to avenge Husayn's death and they apparently acted independent of the Zubayrid authorities. Only in April 685 did the Alids take over Kufa from the Zubayrids. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a poem attributed to him, Marwan thanked the following tribes: Is it possible to quote a few verses of the poem in-text, for flavor?
I added the poem in a blockquote. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • re-instituting the principle of direct hereditary succession: Does this mean this principle were also followed in the next successions? If yes, suggest mentioning
Done. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In later anti-Umayyad Muslim tradition: Does this refer to pro-Zubayrid tradition, the Alid and Shia tradition, Abbasid tradition, or others?
I believe it's a catch-all for the Abbasid-era tradition but it isn't specified in the source so I didn't write "anti-Umayyad, Abbasid-era tradition". Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any reason that in this article the al- gets shortened in Abu'l-Ash but not in Abi al-Ash?
Just following Bosworth; but I prefer the fuller "Abu al-As", so it's switched now (except for the quote). Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a fair amount of direct quotation from modern scholars here, e.g. about the internal state of mind ("No wonder he cast envious looks", "may have been fears of the family of Abu'l-As that impelled him"), as well as evaluations (e.g. "a military leader and statesman of great skill"). This is fine, but I wonder if we can also supplement them with similar quotation from traditional historians/biographers, especially if they were quoted by RS?
I'll look into this. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: any luck on this? HaEr48 (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HaEr48 I have yet to find any such quotation of a medieval historian in the secondary sources (Bosworth, Donner, Madelung, Kennedy, etc.). There's plenty of tidbits of alleged/attributed conversations or comments from Marwan's contemporaries, including Mu'awiya, Ali, his own sons, the tribal chiefs of Syria, etc. but a lot of this is directly from primary sources (Tabari and Ya'qubi) and also not what you're looking for. Even in those two primary sources, I could not find the authors' opinions or the opinions of their transmitters. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other than assessment from historian, are there assessments from later religious authorities that we can include? E.g. do notable religious authors in the Sunni or Shia traditions have something specific to say about him and his impact? Or is this actually covered by the third para of "Assessment"? (hard to see because the sources are named very vaguely)
It's a bit scanty here. A lot of it is "the prophet Muhammad said so-and-so" about Marwan's father al-Hakam being the father of evil progeny, which is most likely words being falsely attributed to Muhammad by partisan opponents of the Umayyads in Iraq generations after the prophet's death and Marwan's death for that matter. I have not found any notable religious scholars assessments but tried to attribute the origins of the negative or neutral reports to the specific medieval sources. Let me know your thoughts. Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for me. Apologies if it's quite long, and hope that they can improve the article. Overall, I think the article is well-researched, written carefully in a neutral manner, and I enjoyed reading it. I hope you'll work on even more high-quality articles in this important era of Islamic history . I'm sure those article have high impact in terms of readership! (See this, for example) HaEr48 (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: Thank you for pointing out some glaring gaps in the context and some important issues in the chronological order, among other helpful suggestions. I believe I've addressed your concerns the best I could and the article is indeed the better for it ;) Let me know what your thoughts are regarding the latest revisions/additions. I'm going to go over everything again a couple times myself to make sure everything reads smoothly and concisely. I'll also add the extra context about the cause for avenging Uthman's death and the First Fitna shortly. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: I believe all concerns should be addressed now. Let me know if there's anything else. Cheers Al Ameer (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Al Ameer son: Thank you very much for your responses. I am very happy with your updates, and I left a ping about one unanswered item. I'll give the article another look in a day or two, but I think it is looking excellent. HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As per my comments and the responses above, and after reading the article again, I'm happy to support this nomination. Thanks, Al Ameer son for your responses and for your great work. HaEr48 (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2019 [40].

Proteus (video game)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sam Walton (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2013 exploration game Proteus. The game was central to debates around video games as art and contributed to discussions around whether walking simulators could be considered 'video games'. Well received and the recipient of many awards, I think it's high time this article became featured.

This is the fourth nomination, the previous FACs being closed either as a result of lack of interest or due to prose concerns. Since the last FAC the article has undergone fairly substantial copyediting, and I think it's time for a formal review again. Sam Walton (talk) 10:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors who participated in previous FACs (and are still active): @Damien Linnane, JimmyBlackwing, Czar, PresN, and J Milburn:. If you have time for a fresh review I'd super appreciate it. Sam Walton (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Blue Pumpkin Pie

[edit]
The aggregated scores are in the middle of the Reception, it should be the first sentence above the commentary of the game, it may not be 100% necessary in the prose either, but that's not a negative. there are some fixes that need to be made, primarily from the Reception section. I don't agree with merging similar opinions if there's going to be two different quotes in the same sentence. Although I do see an effort by organizing certain topics or common opinions onto their own paragraph. It's not necessary to list the names of the reviewers unless they hold additional merit outside of the respected website/magazine that they are representing. Some reviews still have scores in the prose, those should be removed and be left in the VG reviews box. If these can be addressed, I might support it for featured.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: Thanks for the review! Responses below:
  • The aggregated scores are in the middle of the Reception
The intention on scores being in the middle was to have it be chronological (the section even used to be separate by pre/post-release sub-headings). There were pre-release awards and previews, then the aggregated scores are for the full post-release reviews. If you think that's confusing then I can shuffle things around to be more standard. Sam Walton (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree with merging similar opinions if there's going to be two different quotes in the same sentence.
Could you point this out? I might be missing the sentence(s) you're referring to. Sam Walton (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not necessary to list the names of the reviewers
Reworded to remove all names except in the case of Jim Rossignol, who has his own article. Sam Walton (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some reviews still have scores in the prose
Fixed. Sam Walton (talk) 12:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the reception section again, it appears that the first two paragraphs are reception prior to the release of the game, while everything after is after or upon release. It can be confusing because the article doesn't clarify what the second paragraph is focused on. I read it as post-release information. It could be a good idea to separate it into post-release section and pre-release section to avoid confusion.
These are the sentences that i was talking about earlier.
Eurogamer, PC Gamer, and IGN all gave praise to the game's dynamic audio, commenting on how it accompanied them through the game, with IGN writing, "It's oddly captivating to just walk around and let [the sounds] wash over your surroundings".
It might be better to just state "Multiple reviewers gave praise to the dynamic audio." as an opening sentence for the paragraph and highlight any specific quotes from each reviewer, not just IGN. Unless somehow PC Gamer and Eurogamer have very similar and its too difficult to differentiate, then instead just separate IGN's statement.
GameSpot thought that the game had little replayability, and PC Gamer opined that the game felt very similar in subsequent playthroughs.
Although their opinions are similar, this is trying to highlight each opinion separately in one sentence. If you want to make each statement distinct, then they should be separated.
Metro's review stated that the Vita's version gave the author more reasons to re-play the game due to the addition of PlayStation Trophies, and PlayStation Official Magazine called the PlayStation 3 version "simple but wonderfully effective"
The same issue mentioned before.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it clearer that the first paragraph refers to pre-release awards, and the second paragraph directly mentions 2011/2012, in addition to the IGN article being a preview. I've also hopefully now addressed the sentences flagged above. Sam Walton (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're asking the reader too much to know that the second paragraph is still related to pre-release reception. The average GA and FA video game article groups reception by accolades and reviews. The current method in the article is unheard of. The average reader will assume the first paragraph is about awards and not see the connection of pre-release. Adding "in 2011/2012" doesn't help either.
The reception section shouldn't have this much afterthought involved. It should be clear and not leave readers guessing on why you made the decisions you made. The easiest solution is adding a "pre-release" and "Post-release" section. Fewer changes that way. Or the more standard method: "Critics" and "Accolades". Having a non-standard method and expecting readers to understand it is out of the question.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 00:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After further review, GameFront is also not recognized as a credible reviewer in WP:VG/RS, so this could definitely impact the FA. If you want it to be reviewed, you should follow the procedure of WP:VG/RS talk page.
GameSpot noted that while some events and locations weren't guaranteed on each playthrough, they found that later seasons of the game began to feel familiar. PC Gamer opined that the game felt very similar in subsequent playthroughs. GameTrailers reviewer thought that the randomly generated islands provided an opportunity to see things players may have missed the first time. Similarly, IGN's reviewer found himself replaying the game many times.
In this paragraph, it is not clear why its considered mix reception. there is no proper flow and doesn't elaborate on their opinions very well. Did GameSpot find that as a negative or a positive? How about PC Gamer's opinion? IGN replaying the game many times doesn't add to the reception. It could imply that IGN enjoyed it, but again, its best to be clear and not leave it to the imagination of the readers. I read the reviews so I know there's room to elaborate.
Pocket Gamer gave a positive review, praising the extra features present in the Vita version, while noting it had some performance issues. Metro's review stated that the Vita's version gave the author more reasons to re-play the game due to the addition of PlayStation Trophies. PlayStation Official Magazine called the PlayStation 3 version "simple but wonderfully effective"
Once again, elaborate on the reviews and be specific on what they focused on is important for a good reception section.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Blue Pumpkin Pie - I've attempted to address all your concerns, shuffling and expanding much of the reception section. Let me know what you think. Sam Walton (talk) 13:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think so far this appears worthy to be a featured article. i also support.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47

[edit]
  • I do not think the semi-colon is appropriate for this part "Key first conceived Proteus as an open-ended role-playing game akin to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion;" because the following part is still part of the same sentence.
  • I have a comment about this part " The game was involved in numerous discussions of video games as art, with some debating whether it could be considered a video game at all.". I have been told in the past to avoid "with..." sentence constructions like this. I personally do not have an issue with it, but I thought it was worth discussion.
  • I do not think the references in the infobox are needed, as the release dates should be mentioned and cited in the body of the article as well.
  • I am not sure if both screenshots are necessary. I do not think the positioning of the second screenshot in the "Development" section makes much sense as the visual changes are not discussed there. I have been told in the past to keep non-free media usage to a minimal so I think only one screenshot is necessary.
    • The images are freely licensed, so we shouldn't be concerned about minimal usage. I think it's worth having both images because a central part of the game is the changing seasons. I'm not sure of best practice on image positions, the current positioning was primarily a way of spacing them out. Happy to shift the 2nd around. Sam Walton (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apologies for that. I should have clicked on the images before I made this comment. Since they are both freely licensed, then I think it makes sense to include both of them. Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would link "role-playing game" in the lead.
  • For this part "Both during development and after the game's release the developers expressed interest in allowing player-created mods of the game", should there be a comma after "the game's release"?
  • For this part "Proteus was released on 30 January 2013 for Windows and OS X", I would wikilink "Windows" and "OS X".
  • For this part "and on 8 April of the same year for Linux", I would wikilink "Linux".
  • For this part "whose team added new gameplay features to the Vita edition at Sony's behest", I think it would be better to say "at Sony's request". The word "behest" makes me think more of an order or a command, but the article says that Sony requested for additional features and allowed the developmental team to create them on their own terms.
  • For this part "Some called it an anti-game, a description which was controversial.", I would consider bundling the citations together. Since the citations are only used for this sentence, it would not cause any issues with the rest of the article, and it would avoid any concerns with Wikipedia:Citation overkill, which is usually raised with the use of four or more citations for a single sentence.
    • Huh, you learn something new every day. Hadn't considered bundling citations. While I like the idea, per the help page - "If any of the sources in the bundle is re-used elsewhere in the text, the citation cannot be implemented by using named references". If we did this it would result in duplicating citations in the References section. Do you think that trade-off is worthwhile? Sam Walton (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not see the references, in this case Reference 47 through 50, being used elsewhere so I do not think it would cause any issue. Could you point out where one of the references is re-used elsewhere in the text as I seem to be overlooking it? Bundling the sources is not entirely necessary. I thought it might be an interesting point to raise as part of the review. It is not a requirement, but I was just curious about your thoughts on it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're totally right, I saw they were named refs and assumed they were used elsewhere. Anyway, I've shuffled the cites around (and added one) so that they more closely match the information, and now we don't have 4 in one place, so I feel fine with how things stand. Sam Walton (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with the article. Above are some suggestions that I have for the article after doing a brief read-through. I will sit down and do a more thorough look through the article in the future. I have very fond memories of this particular game after watching a YouTuber's ASMR videos with it. It definitely helped me in a not so great period of my life. I hope these comments are helpful, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • This should be my final comment before I support this for promotion. Thank you for your patience. The following book (1) includes a discussion on Proteus in its preface and some of its chapter. If you search for the game's name on the Google Books link, then you should be able to find and read all of the relevant sections. I was wondering if this source would be helpful to the article? The book talks more about the debate of whether this should be considered a true video game or not and delves further into some of its mechanics, like the music portions. I do not believe this source is used in the article (major apologies if I somehow I missed it) so I thought it was worth asking about in this discussion. Ian Bogost also discusses the game in the following book (2), and I think it may be helpful for the article as well. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aoba47: Thanks for those links, I'd totally missed them. I think everything the first book describes is already included and cited. The 2nd is more interesting to me, though I struggled to figure out how best to incorporate it. I gave it a go in this edit. Thoughts? Sam Walton (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the response. The wording could use a little more work, primarily the two verb+ing phrasing. Maybe something like "Ian Bogost proposed that Proteus was intentionally unconventional, arguing that it is "a game about being an island instead of a game about being on one"."? Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think two points from the first source may be helpful to the article. On page 322, it mentions the "gravestones" and "idols" on the island. I think adding a brief part about that would add some necessary context to what is meant by "memorial" in the first screenshot. The same page also mentions how the island is 3D, but all of the objects are represented in 2D. I think that is also a relevant point to incorporate. The same page also talks about "8-bit wisps" coming out during the nighttime portions of the game, but that may be too minor for inclusion. Just thought that may be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 18:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Incorporated your suggestions in this edit. The wisps were mentioned in an earlier version of this article, but as you suggest, were removed because they were hard to explain and relatively minor in the grand scheme of the game. Sam Walton (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for addressing both points. I will look through the article one last time when I get the chance just in case I missed anything, but everything looks good to me. Great work with this. Aoba47 (talk) 22:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now...

....although some [responded negatively to] the game's brevity and limited replayability. - bracketed bit seems a bit cumbersome....why not just, "criticised" or "complained about"?
is it cited as an influence by anyone else? (given we're now 8 years down the track....)

Otherwise looks okay on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the lead per the first point. The closest I came to seeing it cited as an influence is this, but that's more by the author than the developers. Sam Walton (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Damien Linnane

[edit]

I supported at the last FAC, and the article has only improved since then. One question that does not affect my support though: is the hyphen placement correct at "location- and date-specific"? I'm honestly not sure; it just looks odd to me. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct - see Hyphen#Suspended_hyphens. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (passed)

[edit]
  • Names of works are not consistently wikilinked when they have articles (fn 2, fn 12, for example)
  • Fn 7, I'm curious about why you're citing what appears to be a high school or college textbook for gameplay basics. Checking the source, they appear to cite an essay of sorts by Daniel Golding for their description of the game. That essay appears to be in a reliable source, but an essay itself isn't a good source for gameplay.
  • That wasn't my interpretation. It looks like they are attempting to cite Golding. I understand it's an academic essay but what makes them qualified to write about video gameplay? It's not a peer-reviewed publication, nor is it in a game-related journal. --Laser brain (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 22, fails verification. The date of a tweet saying something is "now available to buy online" isn't a good source for when something "shipped" which is what your text reads.
  • Shacknews seems to have an incorrect publisher.

Image review (passed)

[edit]
  • File:Proteus logo.png is used appropriately in the article and has good ALT text. In the FUR box, the "Author or copyright owner" is empty though so that should be addressed.
  • Everything seems correct with File:Memorial in Proteus.png and File:Autumn in Proteus.png. The links back to the original source works and there seems to be the correct permission for it to be used on Wikipedia.
  • Would it be more beneficial to switch the screenshots? The seasons/time change is more discussed in the "Gameplay" section so the second screenshot seems to fit there more. And the first screenshot is focused on the exploration/interaction aspects, which is discussed in the "Development" section, and it includes images of trees which is already discussed in this part (with the impressionistic tree design being one of the first he settled on). It seems like it would be more at home at the top of this section. This is just a suggestion though so I understand if you prefer the current order.

I hope this is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aoba47: I'm open to discussion on this. I placed them this way around because it seemed more natural to see Spring before Autumn, given the game moves through the seasons, but perhaps that's too 'artistic' of a reason :) Sam Walton (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. The current image placement works for me. I was just brainstorming different approaches for them, but I can understand placing the seasons in more of a chronological order based on their appearance in the game. I think a GIF would be helpful to better showcase the exploration focus of the game, but I will leave that matter up to you. I have no experience making or uploading GIFs on Wikipedia so I cannot be much help there (apologies for that), but I know that it has been done before. Right now, this passes my image review, but please ping me if you do decide to add a GIF just so I can update my review accordingly. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I haven't found time to look into creating a gif yet. In the meantime, @Laser brain: do you have any further sourcing concerns? Sam Walton (talk) 13:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9: All good here. --Laser brain (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think a gif is absolutely necessary so it still passes my image review. Aoba47 (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been meaning to make time to look into the gif idea but frankly it might be beyond my technical capabilities to put together one that's suitable. Sam Walton (talk) 20:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is understandable. I do not think it is absolutely necessary for the article so I would not worry about it too much. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2019 [43].

St. Croix macaw

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about an extinct macaw only known from a few bones, hence a fairly short article. The article has a chequered nomination history, and was originally brought to GA by a now retired user, who I recently asked "permission" to improve it further for FAC, which was granted. The article has been expanded and rewritten considerably from the GA version (the previous version can be seen here[44]), though some text under description (and the images there) is basically retained from the GA version. I had a lot of relevant sources lying around from writing about other extinct macaws, so I thought it was about time this one got the treatment. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Saint-Croix-Macaw-Distribution.png: what's the source of the data presented in this image?
Added. All that's known is that it was found on the islands shown. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added; though Lydekker was possibly not the artist, no artist is credited, but he is the author of the book. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

[edit]

I had a look at this for GoCE and there was some interaction on the talk page, so hopefully there won't be much left to comment on.

  • "were imported or native species" Optional: → 'were native or imported species'.
Makes sense, done. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its bones are intermediate in size between those of smaller and larger macaws" I know that we have already discussed this, but could you clarify how this statement, which does not, it seems to me, increase the knowledge of a reader, would not be improved by being replaced by 'Its bones are intermediate in size between those of the two main groups of extant macaws'. This does not, it seems to me, contradict the source.
How about this, which should be more specific: "Extant macaws can generally be grouped in either large or small size clusters, yet the bones of the St. Croix macaw are intermediate in size between the two". FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spot on. Just what needs to be said.
  • It doesn't seem reasonable to present the reader with "Pomarrosa phase" without definition or explanation. Even more so as the only use of it I can find in the literature - I am open to correction - is in a single paper, dealing with this extinct species. Personally I would delete it and write something in English, but as a minimum it needs explaining.
It seems to have been discussed in this thesis:[45] But since it isn't free online, and it isn't that important, I've rewritten the text so it isn't named. Now it says "found in a kitchen midden deposit which has been dated to around 300 AD." FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason why the comment in Nicholls (p 263) "early reports suggest that many species still existed in large numbers at first contact" doesn't make the cut?
Doesn't really apply to this species, as it is not known from any reports, and may have died out before European contact (it is true for the Lesser Antillean macaw, tough, where it is discussed). FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The four cites to Wiley are each to a 32 page range. This makes it difficult to check them. Would it be possible to narrow this down in each case?
Broke it up as "125–128, 230–132, 137–145, 149–151" (a style I have been told before was ok), better? FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An entirely acceptable style. Still 18 pages for a single cite though. Before I dive into the text, are you quite sure that all 18 pages are needed to support each of the four statements linked to?
Yeah, the thing is, much of the text here summarises several pages in few words within single sentences. For example, the following sentences cover ground that the paper takes many pages to cover in detail: "All the endemic Caribbean macaws were likely driven to extinction by humans (both in prehistoric and historic times), though hurricanes and disease may also have contributed. Native Caribbeans hunted macaws and held them captive for later use as food, but also as pets". That alone covers several chapters where the source examines each of these issues. FunkMonk (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Native Caribbeans hunted parrots and held them captive" Why refer to parrots when the same source refers to Native Caribbeans hunting and capturing macaws? (pp 137-138)
Changed, macaws are parrots, but I see your point. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies; trying to be too succinct. Makes a little more sense for your "typical" reader now, I think.

Some quick first thoughts. More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, should now be answered. FunkMonk (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that it took me so long to come back to you on this. A couple of comments above. Having just read through for probably the fifth time I can't find any additional quibbles. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I'm used to waiting for months with articles like this, so that certainly didn't seem long. And thanks for the coming source review! FunkMonk (talk) 03:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM

[edit]

Happy to offer some comments. If it's of any interest, I have a biology FAC seeking reviewers at the moment. Don't feel obliged to join in, though.

Thanks, didn't know there was another biology article up, I just took on Crusades, which is a bit of a whopper, so Ill try to have a look when I'm done with that. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Condyle" is undefined/unlinked jargon
Was linked and explained at the last mention of the word for some reason, now moved to first. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation needed for "trochlea".
No article for this particular kind, so removed link and added "(a grooved structure where bones join)". FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while the more robust shaft of the femur is consistent with the condition in Ara but dissimilar to Anodorhynchus." You've lost me, sorry. Condition?
Changed to "is similar to that of Ara". FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the attachment of [pronator brevis (one of the two pronation muscles in the wing) on the humerus is placed farther upwards." What's going on with the brackets?
Was a partly removed duplink, now removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that we have no idea of the colour, but do we have an indication of the total size?
Isn't stated specifically in any of the sources, unfortunately. We can of course extrapolate from the sizes of the other species it was said to be close to in certain measurements, but that would be OR here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's what jumps out at me. Please double-check my edits. Tough topic! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added some replies, tough topic, but luckily very few historical sources to worry about (compared to other extinct birds). FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, seems we forgot a verdict on this one, J Milburn! FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. On a second read, this article looks good. It's a tough topic, but you've done a decent job of bringing things together and making it relatively accessible. The only thing I thought was that Category:Species made extinct by human activities might be worth adding. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, added! FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

I have ended up looking so deeply into the cites and sources that there will be very little extra needed for the full source review. So I will do it formally once I have completed my review above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See initial comments in my "normal" review above.

  • The titles of cites 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13 and 14 should be in tiytle case.
You mean capitalised titles? Isn't that only for books (from my past FAC experience)? FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, rereading the MoS I can see how it could be interpreted that way. (It probably needs clarifying.) Fair enough.
  • As mentioned above, I have serious qualms regarding the large page ranges in many of the cites. I do understand that on occasion this may be necessary. However, looking at specifics:
  1. Cite 5: Olson is used to source "In 1983, he indicated that if the macaw had indeed been transported, the specific name would be a misnomer." This is supported by "Given the fact that there was a lively trade in macaws between Indians in tropical Mexico and those in the desert southwest, it seems probable that trade in macaws would have been carried on in the West Indies as well, so that Ara autocthones may well not have been autochthonous to St. Croix at all." in the source. I fail to see why more than the single page which this is on is cited.
Furthermore, seems I haven't even given a page range for it, so either way it needs fixing... I'll just await your response to my comment below to see what to add. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "All the endemic Caribbean macaws were likely driven to extinction by humans (both in prehistoric and historic times), though hurricanes and disease may also have contributed. Native Caribbeans hunted macaws and held them captive for later use as food, but also as pets. Since they are known from kitchen midden deposits, the macaws from Puerto Rico and St. Croix were evidently also used for subsistence. " has "Native Caribbeans hunted macaws and held them captive for later use as food, but also as pets" supported by Nicols - fine. You offer 18 pages(!) of Wiley & Kirwan to cover the other two sentences. On the last two of these is "Extinction of West Indian macaws.— ... the combination of environmental changes and human-related pressures most certainly sealed the fate of all Antillean macaws. Killing of adult macaws for subsistence or to protect crops probably had a substantial effect. Killing of adult macaws for subsistence or to protect crops probably had a substantial effect; although such persecution had been underway for some two millennia, the arrival of Europeans with their advanced guns must have vastly increased the efficiency with which macaws could be killed, thereby accelerating population declines ... The effects of other factors, including hurricanes and disease, are less easily predicted, but nonetheless potentially contributed to declines and extinctions." I am unsure why any other pages are cited, and some, eg 125–128, 230–132, seem irrelevant as support for the material.
I have removed 125-126. As for 230, that was a typo for 130, but 130 is exactly about this bird? But I have cut out page 131 and 132 from the range. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. To support "In 1978, the ornithologist Storrs L. Olson (using the spelling autochthones) agreed that the bone belonged to a macaw not assignable to any known species, but noted it may not have been native to St. Croix, since indigenous Caribbeans are known to have kept and traded macaws over long distances." you offer all 19 pages of Olson & Gill. But all that is needed is " The bone is indeed that of a macaw (although from an immature individual) and does not appear to be referable to any known species. However, since Indians elsewhere are known to have kept and traded live macaws, often transporting them long distances, the actual provenance of the species Ara autochthones may be subject to doubt." Most of the rest concerns itself with material having little to do with macaws of any species, much less the sentence it is offered in support of.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I could go on. Could you please check all of the longer citations to see if they could not be amended to only refer to the two or three sentences which actually directly support the material in your article which they refer to. Thanks.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:20, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, before I do that, there has been discussions about this issue before; whether journal article page ranges should be broken down as books are, or if their entire page ranges should be given, as is de facto the norm, from what I can tell. Some seem to be for it, some against. Generally my impression is that it is mainly required for very long journal articles (30+ pages), and I can dig up some old FAC discussions that concluded that if we want to look at some precedents. Not that I don't see the merits of your suggestions, I'm just wondering where to "draw the line" for page range lengths. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well WP:VERIFY says "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page ... " Personally I am what you might consider the stricter end, although I had considered myself, and been considered, pretty relaxed prior to checking this article. Basically I don't want a cite to direct me to any pages which are not necessary to support the statement they are attached to. So with Wiley & Kirwan, while all you need IMO is the section I quote I am not going to get worked up if you also cite 137–145 giving lots more detail, but I am going to come back asking for justification if you include 125–128, 230–132. I would be very open to an explanation, but if it is simply deep background, then I don't think that it meets WP:VERIFY. Hopefully this is clear and makes sense; let me know if not.
I am aware that off-Wiki there are other conventions, and that there have been attempts to import some of them into Wikipedia, but WP:VERIFY seems clear to me. All of that said, from the spot checking I have done it is clear that your sources do support your text, and I have no point nor principle to prove. Make verification a bit less time consuming and I'll be happy. (Just for comparison, in my recent FAC Siege of Calais (1346–1347), which you generously assessed, for Lambert's 12 page paper I used six separate cites; and Wagner's encyclopedia entry, which is split over two pages, gets two separate cites. Purely for info, I will not be expecting that here.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look soon, I just wonder if you'd want this done for all journal sources, or just the very long ones. As for the (on-Wiki) discussions I was referring to, here is one:[46] FunkMonk (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had not seen that particular one, but my view is that editors can chatter, or even agree, as they wish, but unless it results in a change to the MoS, or at least a positive RfC, it is just chatter. (Note that I am not saying that I disagree with it, only that I don't believe that it meets the MoS.) I don't wish to be hard on you, I realise that you have put a lot of work into the citations in good faith, so do the longer ones, ping me, and I'll have another look. (But wading through 30 pages of Wiley & Kirwan to find three sentences right at the end 'did my head in' and is in my opinion an unreasonable burden on a reader. In addition to the MoS issues.) I note in passing that Template:Cite journal shows that there is parameter for "pages", to give the page range of an article within a journal, and another for "page" described as "The number of a single page in the source that supports the content". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing but respect for your judgment, so no problem, I'll give it a shot. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have made changes according to the three points above, as well as shortened some other ranges, Gog the Mild. I wanted to shorten the Wing 1989 range, but I only have access to a newer edition of the book where her chapter is at another page range, so I don't know exactly where the relevant page is in the original. And the reason why I need to cite the original edition of the book is that the later response to Wing's statement is found in the same 2001 second edition of the book, but is written as a response to the 1989 edition. So it's a bit complicated... FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That all seems fine, thanks. And thank you for the explanation.

The sources used are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. I have done a fair bit of spot checking, and the sources referred to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough reviews! FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Looking now...

  • ...meaning native, aborigine, or indigene - "indigene" is an unusual word. I'd remove as the first two give the meaning enough
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though fossils of the parrot genera Amazona and Aratinga have been found in pre-human sites on Puerto Rico, none belonging to macaws have been found. - presumably second "have" should be "had" as this sentence predates the current discovery
By current discovery, do you mean of the St. Croix macaw? It was not found in pre-human sites (which would indicate it was native), but only in kitchen middens (which makes it unclear if it was native). Of course, I could have misunderstood your comment... I added "none such" in front of "belonging to macaws" to make it clear it is in relation to the other "pre-human" remains... FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My bad - I misread the statement Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is likely that the St. Croix macaw became extinct due to these factors, but the date it happened is unknown - presumably there is a clear date when there are none...? So can be "date unknown but before....?"
You mean that we should be able to extrapolate before which date it should have gone extinct? None of the sources speculate on this, we don't even know if it happened after the arrival of Europeans... The only source which says anything about an extinction date is Hume, who just says "date of extinction unknown". FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was it could be narrowed down to (say) "unknown but before 1700" but if no sources do that then don't worry. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for support, none of the sources speculate on that, also, if the birds were imported from elsewhere, who knows how long they could have survived in their native area after disappearing from these islands... FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, strong article and on track to pass. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, answered above. FunkMonk (talk) 03:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 3 November 2019 [47].

Muhammad III of Granada

[edit]
Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the third Nasrid Sultan of Granada. Unlike his predecessors Muhammad I and Muhammad II (which I also improved to FA), his rule was rather short and he was deposed in a coup. Recently passed GA, and I subsequently expanded the article to be more comprehensive. I hope I have covered all major facts and details of his life and 7-year reign now. HaEr48 (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk

[edit]
Looks good to me with this context. FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "instead of the Sultan" Not sure, but aren't such titles only suppsoed to be capirtalised when they are followed by a name? Like president and such.
    • MOS:JOBTITLES is relevant here. It is not the clearest guideline out there, but my understanding is that it should be capitalized when referring to a specific person, as is the case here. 04:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • " and the two Christian kingdoms—without mentioning the Marinid collaboration—asked the Pope Clement V" You haven't mentioned the Marinids were also Muslim yet, though it may be obvious to many readers, the point of this sentence may be lost to some if you don't state it explicitly.
    • Stated explictly now in "background"
  • "a palace coup deposed Muhammad and executed his vizier" Organised by who?
  • "He was replaced by his 21-years old half-brother Nasr." Was he in on the coup.
  • "a raven followed him there from the Alhambra" Alhambra has not been linked or presented until this point. You link it further down.
  • "There was an attempt to restore Muhammad III during Nasr's reign" By who?
  • "and like many monarchs of Al-Andalus" Seems a bit odd that al ndalus is only mentioned way down here. I think it could even be mentioned and explained under background, all readers may not know what it is.
  • "the elegance of this mosque, which do not survive" Does not?
  • "was in turn deposed by their nephew Ismail I" I doubt that's the Ismail I you mean, the one linked is a Safavid. Seems Ismail I of Granada is the one.
  • "(destroyed by Philip II in the sixteenth century)" Link Philip? And I wonder if the church built instead has an article?
  • "epithet al-Makhlu'" You don't capitalise makhlu in the article body.
  • "One of the poems that he composed is preserved in full in Ibn al-Khatib's Al-Lamha." Since you even mention this in the intro, which is supposed to cover the most important parts of the article, I wonder if the poem could be shown here?
Cool! There is an incongruence here: "the wine of that lovely lips!" those lovely lips or that lovely lip? FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In the Arabic it is singular, but I guess in English it is more natural to talk about lips as plural, so I've updated it to "those lovely lips". HaEr48 (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
  • File:Fernando IV el Emplazado, Rey de Castilla y León.jpg needs a source. The PD claims can't be verified without one. It also needs a US PD tag.
    • Replaced with another image with a better source and license.
  • Per WP:CAPFRAG, captions should not end in a full stop unless they contain at least one full sentence.
All images are appropriately licenced.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Haukurth

[edit]

The thing about reading well into the night is mentioned in two sections, which seems unnecessary. Also, does reading by poor light really cause vision problems? When I try to Google this, I only get pages rejecting this as a misconception. Haukur (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Haukurth: Good find - I did not know that. Probably the historians just assumed causation between these two things. The sources that debunk this seem very reliable, so I removed any implication from the article, and also it is no longer repeated in two sections. HaEr48 (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Haukur (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording is this: "Historical sources, such as Harvey 1992, p. 166 and Real Academia de la Historia mentioned his night-time reading habit as a possible cause of his eyesight problem." I think the past tense here is odd, I would say 'mention'. But I also think it's odd to refer to Castro as "Real Academia de la Historia", is there a reason for that?

Updated to use present tense and to use "Vidal Castro". My original reason was because it doesn't have a year like other sources named by author name, but on second thought I see it doesn't help anything. HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bibliography of Castro's article lists 38 sources. Are there no more there that you feel would be worthwhile for us?

So, most of those are raw materials for historians (e.g. primary sources or old historians), probably only one-forth or less of the 38 are published in the last 50 years, and we have covered many of those. I will look at one or two new sources mentioned there, but in my experience at this point there is unlikely to be anything substantial to add. HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The images feel a bit low-effort; "the map might not correspond to its territories during Muhammad III's rule" and "Borders might differ slightly from those during Muhammad III's reign" sounds like we could barely even be bothered to look closely at them. For a featured article, I think it's reasonable to expect more. It would also be nice to have images showing artifacts connected with Muhammad III. Coinage was presumably issued during his reign and would be interesting to see. A manuscript page with his poem would be another idea. Haukur (talk) 23:38, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the map with one specific to Muhammad III's reign, thanks for the suggestion :) Also added a page of his poem quoted in his article, but it was from a 1928/1929 edition rather than an original manuscript. Do you think it's still worthwhile to add? I totally agree with you that it would be nice to have more artifacts, but I spent hours looking for coins and other such artifacts, but could not find anything. We have to remember that he was just a ruler of a small kingdom for 7 years, likely we do not have as much artifacts from that narrow period and place. Fortunately, the Partal Palace that he built still exists, and the article has a picture of that HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do have some coin experts around. Maybe User:T8612 would know where to look, even if this isn't his time period. Haukur (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, couldn't find one, but even if I did, the problem is to have copyright free pictures. A large ancient coin dealer has accepted to release all their coin pics in the public domain, so we have plenty of them as a result. It would be great if we could have the same arrangement with a dealer of modern coins, but I don't know how to do that. T8612 (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into it! Haukur (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Haukurth: Thanks for the additional comments. I replied above. Let me know if you have more. HaEr48 (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updated map. That's much better. And I do think the page with the poem adds a little something. Haukur (talk) 15:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still think showing the page is helpful. It allows anyone who can read Arabic to quickly dig deeper into M's poetry. And I think it's a nice touch visually. Haukur (talk) 08:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RetiredDuke

[edit]

Just a small comment. This biography has a picture of a palace ("Partal Palace") and claims that its construction is attributed to Muhammad III. Muhammad II's biography has a different picture of the same building, but calls it "Tower of the Ladies" and claims that Muhammad II built it. One of the articles has the wrong picture, I think. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great point. I recently noticed it too and was in the middle of researching when you added this comment. After looking up online, right now my theory is "Tower of the Ladies" is just the tower, and Muhammad III subsequently built a palace (including gardens, etc.) in its site. For now I changed the picture in Muhammad II to just zoom in on the tower. It's still bothering me though, so I am trying to find more sources that can tell me for sure, and for that I added a request in WP:RX. I will update again when I have more information. Thank you for your feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RetiredDuke: After some research, I've updated Muhammad II to no longer include the picture of the building - the current building was built by Muhammad III even though Muhammad II previously built a tower in that site. I've also clarified Muhammad II's contributions to the Alhambra in that article. The usage of the picture in Muhammad III is appropriate though. HaEr48 (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: Thank you for clarifying the matter, even going out of your way to research some more. I know we're not reviewing Muhammad II here, but I wasn't sure if you had spotted this inconsistency between the two articles. (And I'm quite enjoying these articles so they better be consistent between them!) RetiredDuke (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Mimihitam

[edit]

Outstanding work! I have a few comments:

  • "He had the reputation of being both cultured—he particularly loved poetry—and cruel." --> reputation among whom? You might have to specify it in the lede.
  • " His blindness or poor vision forced him to be absent from many duties as Sultan and rely on high officials" --> if he was blind, how could he engage in poetry? Also was he born blind or did he become blind later in his life?

Mimihitam (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • He was not born blind—#Early life section mentioned that he initially had a habit of reading into the night. Added "Later in his life" to lead to make this clear without having to read the article body. HaEr48 (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]
  • @HaEr48: Look at this sentence in the lead On April 8, 1302 he ascended the Granadan. I also replied to your response below. Cheers.
I see it now. Thanks. The inconsistency is removed now. HaEr48 (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Fowler&fowler

[edit]

An article that passes GA on September 5 is not ready for an FAC review on September 9. That is a general principle of courtesy to the WP community, regardless of the rules. Here is a list of errors in the first few sentences of the lead:

"He ascended the Granadan sultan's throne after the death of his father Muhammad II, which unconfirmed rumours said was caused by Muhammad III poisoning him."
"which unconfirmed rumours" (Rumors, by definition, are unconfirmed)
"rumours said" (Rumours can't speak. They ascribe, attribute, implicate, etc., ...)
The full sentence: "He ascended the Granadan sultan's throne after the death of his father Muhammad II, which unconfirmed rumours said was caused by Muhammad III poisoning him." (It is best to break it up, as the reader is attempting to digest new information: "He ascended the Granadan sultan's throne upon the death of his father Muhammad II. Rumors at the time implicated him (or Muhammad III) in the death which was attributed to poisoning."
Removed "unconfirmed". I retained "said" per WP:SAY, and did not split because the resulting sentences would be too short on its own, but long in total. This is the lead section, conciseness is important too. I don't think a reader will have too much trouble processing two info in the same sentence. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, I think that F&f's objection is not to the use of the word "said" per se, but to the fact that rumours, like theories, ideas, etc, can't say. Suggest you reword as: "According to rumours..." Brianboulton (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton User HaEr48 already put "According to rumours...", but this user is still unsatisfied. Mimihitam (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"He had the reputation of being both cultured—he particularly loved poetry and reading—and cruel." (A more extreme version of this would be, "He had the reputation of being both cultured—he particularly loved reciting poetry and reading histories while riding bareback—and cruel. In other words, if you are going to exemplify one, viz "cultured," by giving an instance, then you must balance the sentence by exemplifying the other, "cruel.")
Removed the "—he particularly.." part to make it balanced. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Later in his life, he became blind or suffered poor eyesight," (If you're not sure which, then you need to say something more general like, "he became visually handicapped.")
Good suggestion. Done. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"which forced him to be absent from many duties as Sultan and rely on high officials," (Blindness doesn't necessarily "force." The response to it is person-dependent. Absenting oneself doesn't automatically imply that high officials will step in. He is the Sultan, his duties are of the Sultan. So, it is much better to say, "which caused him to rely on high officials in the performance of his duties."
Reworded the sentence. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Inheriting a war against the Crown of Castile, he expanded his father's territorial gains by taking Bedmar"
"Inheriting a war against" (In figurative or literary language one could say that, (another example is: "Churchill inherited WWII from Chamberlain."} but generally not in encyclopedic language, which requires more precision.)
"Inheriting a war against the Crown of Castile, he" (Usually, the first reference to the subject in a paragraph is not to a pronoun, unless the noun is close at hand, in the same sentence; so it's better to say, "Inheriting ... , Muhammad III ...")
" expanded his father's territorial gains" ("territorial gains" refer to an increase in the area of sovereign lands, in other words, to "territorial expansion." You can't really expand an expansion. Better to say, "continued the territorial expansion begun by his father." or "furthered the territorial gains of his father." Probably, it is most encyclopedic to say something like: "During his reign, Muhammad II had expanded the kingdom's territory by annexing blank, blank, ... and blank from Castile; Muhammad III continued the territorial expansion by annexing Bedmar. This sequence of presentation has the least number of chronological surprises for a reader. The participial clause, "Inheriting a war ...," however, transports the father, who very likely did most of the annexing, to much later in the sentence (to the predicate in the main clause}. Until then, we have no idea that the father had made any territorial gains.)
"Receive or be left with from a predecessor" is a dictionary definition of "inherit", so it is appropriate here. As for your suggestion, it will make the passage a lot longer, while we want the lead section to be a summary. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"He then negotiated a treaty with Castile, which confirmed Granada's new border in return for Muhammad III being a vassal of Ferdinand IV and paying him tribute."
"He then" ("then" is not needed. It is understood that it is what he did next.)
Removed. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"which confirmed" (a treaty doesn't really "confirm;" it recognizes. The Sultan's parliament, if he had had one, would have confirmed the treaty.
Changed to recognized. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Granada's new border" (you didn't tell us anything about a border until now; what you mean is something like, "negotiated a treaty with Castille which recognized Granada's sovereignty over the territories it had recently annexed."
Changed to "recognized Granada's conquests" which is more concise than your suggestion. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I am feeling overwhelmed by the lack of clarity. So, imagine the plight of a new reader. Your article needs more clarity in the presentation. We haven't got to the sources, to how comprehensively the article covers them, to how accurately it reflects the consensus, the controversies, and so forth. But a reviewer cannot delve into them when the presentation is opaque. The sentences above are examples. Fixing them alone will not fix the article. I will check again in a couple of weeks time, but not before. The presentation requires that much time to improve, and perhaps more. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I won't comment on the issues brought up here, but the statement "An article that passes GA on September 5 is not ready for an FAC review on September 9" is false, FAC nominations don't even have to be GAs first to begin with (and are routinely sent to FAC straight after passing GAN). The time it takes to go from GA to FAC is even more irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I said, "Regardless of the rules." It is a value judgment. You do not agree with it. That does not make it false. Furthermore, just because it is routinely done does not make it right, nor its submission any less of a discourtesy to reviewers. I'm sure the Greeks have a name for that fallacy. My oppose, I hasten to say, has to do with the errors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: Thank you for your comments. I've replied above and I've followed those that I feel useful. I'm afraid I have to push back on some of the others because they do not look like improvements. For example, I do not want to expand sentences that are meant as summaries in lead with longer sentences that explains too much detail. As for time between GA and FA, not only there is no rule about it, I am also not sure what it has to do with being "general principle of courtesy". Looking forward to improve the article if you have more feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you are looking for compression, want to suggest that M-III personally delivered the poison to M-II, are hesitant to use pronouns, fearing ambiguity, nowhere does it say that,
"He ascended the Granadan sultan's throne after the death of his father Muhammad II, which rumours said was caused by Muhammad III poisoning him." is to be preferred to:
"Muhammad III ascended the Granadan sultan's throne upon the death his father Muhammad II. Rumours cast the death as poisoning by Muhammad III." Please take my comments in the spirit in which they are meant. It goes for all my comments. It goes for the rest of the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 copyedited this passage, hopefully this looks good for you now. HaEr48 (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns of Fowler&fowler I: The rephrased versions of some early senteces
Unfortunately, in my experience, if the author is not making the edits himself or herself with care, eliciting instead edits from others, the text keeps stumbling from one error-ridden version to another.

It now reads: "He ascended the throne following the death of his father, Muhammad II. Contemporaries rumoured that the younger Muhammad had poisoned him, and in later life he gained a reputation for both culture and cruelty."

I don't know who finally edited this version, but it is much worse than what you had before.

  • There are issues here with the pronoun "he" and its various forms. In the first sentence "he" and "his" refer to Muhammad III. In the second sentence "him" refers to Muhammad II but the "he" to Muhammad III.
  • In the second sentence, "and" implies that there is a connection between poisoning one's father and becoming cultured later in life. Surely, that is not what you intended.
  • "Contemporaries," has the additional implication of peer-group. We have no idea who the rumor mongers were. They could have been contemporaries of the deceased king for all we know.
  • And "the younger Muhammad?" The reader does not know at this stage whether Muhammad is a name or the Sultan's title. If it is a title, then it wasn't assumed at the time of the poisoning, so "that younger Muhammad had poisoned him," is confusing. Also "Younger Muhammad" is generally too colloquial for an encyclopedia, at least in the lead.
  • "Later life," is not the same thing as "later in life." ("Later life," generally, refers to the latter period of life, as in "diseases of later life, such as cancer." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All you want to say is something simple. If you don't like my versions, you can write something along the lines of what Brianboulton has suggested: "According to rumors then current, the death was by poisoning and the perpetrator (was) Muhammad III." But there are bigger questions here, that only you can ask yourself, and answer. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not be interacting here, but reading through this, it needs pushback.
1) Nobody is going to confuse the world's single most common name for a title. For the record, the title was introduced in the first sentence of the lede as "Sultan". Moreover, the "younger Muhammad" has already been introduced as the son of Muhammad II by this point, but it is a tad colloquial.
2) Contemporaries also means "those alive at the time", which they must have been, else they would not have been able to rumour it.
And 3) As to pronouns, short of concluding that "the younger Muhammad" is a separate, un-introduced son of Muhammad II there is little confusion to be had here. Or do you want to suggest that Muhammad III poisoned Muhammad III and "gained a reputation for ..." after that.
Here: He ascended the throne following the death of his father, Muhammad II, whom, [it was/contemporaries] rumoured, he had poisoned. In all instances he/his refers to Muhammad III. Whether Muhammad III poisoned him directly or indirectly will impact the proposed rework from "he had poisoned" to "he had had poisoned". Although, I must caution the nominator, that F&F will find no less than six issues with it, say it is utterly illegible, and conclude that it must have been written by a particularly vicious group of monkeys bashing their heads against a type-writer. Let me get you all started: the comma placement is probably entirely fucked. Something something operative, subordinate, submissive clause something something. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't understand the fuss. In my opinion, the sentences that were mentioned here are completely clear and understandable. Furthermore, the "problems" that were raised by this particular user seem to be excessively fabricated, like "reader confusing Muhammad as a title" - LOL?? In my opinion, the nominator should just dismiss nonconstructive rebuke like this. Mimihitam (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr rnddude and Mimihitam for chiming in. I thought it was just me who find this review a little... nonconstructive. Fowler&fowler we need a better way to make the review more effective. I'd suggests rather than focusing on rebukes we could try to make the review more specific and actionable, like the other reviews in this page. If what you propose is clearly an improvement, you don't even need to include argument; if it is less clear I can ask clarification. Ideally, most of the comments should be clear, so only a few clarification will be needed. If you look at the reviews from FunkMonk and CPA-5, most comments are sppecific action item without needing arguments. This way we're able to cover the entire article effectively, while in your review after so many words and back and forth we barely made any improvement to the lead section, and we end up with a lot of confused editors. HaEr48 (talk) 11:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: By "title" I obviously mean a regnal name. George, Edward, John, Henry, Charles, William, are all among the world's common names. But we don't say, "At the time of George V's death, George VI was chiefly known for having lived a sickly childhood in the shadow of his flamboyant brother Edward VIII." We say, "Prince Albert was chiefly known for having lived a sickly childhood in the shadow of his flamboyant brother Prince Edward." Like I said, "contemporary," the noun, can mean what you state, but usually with "of" or a possessive; but, it can also mean, "A person of approximately the same age as another or others." (OED); "one of the same or nearly the same age as another" (Webster's Unabridged), especially when used after a reference to a person by name. In fact, it has an implication of peer-group (including, sometimes, social status). It would be unwise to use "contemporaries" if the rumor had been begun by poor teenagers in a slum. As for "... whom it was rumored he had poisoned," while it is grammatically correct, it elevates the rumored poisoning to the same semantic level, and thus implied significance, as the death of the father. If you are Lytton Strachey and writing provocative prose, this is acceptable; if you are writing for an encyclopedia, it is not. Without having looked, I am reasonably sure that the major English language sources have phrasing much closer to mine than what was in the article when I first encountered it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The version of the text critiqued by the reviewer above has been since rewritten, so let's move on to looking at the current text. HaEr48 (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns of Fowler&fowler II: Death, poisoning, regnal name
@HaEr48: I just looked at one of the sources, Hugh Kennedy's Muslim Spain and Portugal. Here is what Kennedy says:

"Muhammad II was succeeded by his son, Muhammad III (1302-9). He seems to have been a strange character, with a reputation for bizarre cruelty, and it was alleged that he had in fact poisoned his father. However, he played much the same diplomatic and military game as his father and grandfather had before him. For the first year he continued his father's policy of raiding Castile and maintaining an alliance with Aragon and the Merinids. In 1303, however, Fernando IV established effective control in Castile and forced a complete turnabout in policy. Muhammad was obliged to make peace and to pay the tribute his father had paid to Sancho IV."

Do you see the separation into two sentences of the information about M-II's death and the rumor of the poisoning? Do you see the relegation of the poisoning to the second part of the second sentence, prefaced by "in fact?" That is because Kennedy does not think it has the same significance as M-II's death. Do you see (1302-1307)? That means Muhammad III is a regnal name. Do you see, "continuing his father's policy," along the lines of what I had suggested earlier without being aware of Kennedy's existence? I am paying attention not only to grammar, to style, but also to what sounds historiographically plausible, i.e. to what is in consonance with the writing of history. You need to read the sources again and again. I mean this earnestly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again an extremely fabricated concern. No reader is going to give a damn about whether the poisoning part is as important as M-II's death or not. What is important for the common reader like me is that M-II is M-III's father, that M-III succeeded his father, and that there were rumours that M-III poisoned his own father. This is consistent with the source that was cited, which is all that is important for a good Wikipedia article. I really suggest to @HaEr48 to stop responding to this user, his rebuke is completely nonconstructive (if not downright useless). I've had academic peer reviews before, and they won't fuss over such trivial matter. Mimihitam (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that what we want is to present the death, the succession and the rumour of poisoning. I disagree that we have to split the sentences exactly as Kennedy has it, not only because Kennedy is just one source, but because a Wikipedia lead section serves a different purpose (mostly a summary) than certain paragraphs in a book (which often serve as transition between one section to the next). HaEr48 (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns of Fowler&fowler III: The Lead Sentence
@HaEr48: Please explain the lead sentence, "Muhammad III (16 August 1257 – 21 January 1314, ruled 8 April 1302 – 14 March 1309) the third Nasrid ruler of the Emirate of Granada in Al-Andalus on the Iberian Peninsula." Britannica, for example, defines Al Andalus as:

"Al-Andalus, also called Muslim Spain, Muslim kingdom that occupied much of the Iberian Peninsula from 711 CE until the collapse of the Spanish Umayyad dynasty in the early 11th century. The Arabic name Al-Andalus was originally applied by the Muslims (Moors) to the entire Iberian Peninsula; it likely refers to the Vandals who occupied the region in the 5th century. In the 11th century, when European Christians began to reconquer the peninsula, Al-Andalus, or Andalusia, came to mean only the area still under Muslim control and thus became permanently attached to the modern-day region."

  • But those regions of Spain under Muslim rule had reduced to nothing but Granada by 1302, when Muhammad III succeeded as ruler. So, what does that sentence really mean? ("Muhammad III was the ruler of Granada in Muslim Spain, which by 1302 was nothing but Granada") Why do we have such an opaque and tautological formulation in the lead sentence?
  • Why have you not explicitly mentioned in the lead sentence the most important fact about Granada in 1302, one supported by sources,[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] that it was a small vassal state of Castile? You have only obliquely mentioned it later in the lead. In other words, most sources have a far less grandiloquent formulation, along the lines of: "Muhammad III was the Nasirid ruler of Granada, a (small) Muslim vassal state of Castile on the Iberian Peninsula in the early 14th century."
On the subject of classifying Granada as a "vassal state" of Castile, Harvey pp.26-28 provides an explanation why it is a simplification to call it that. As you see in the article, and other Nasrid biographies, while Nasrid kings from time to time pledge "fealty" and pay tribute to the Castilian king, that relationship is intermittent (in other times Granada is independent and/or fighting against Castile) and even when it is in place, it lacks many other features of a feudal vassal state. I'll let you read Harvey if you want to know more, but for this article I believe it is better to mention the specific acts of oath or tribute payments rather than classifying Granada as a vassal state. HaEr48 (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did you have, "Inheriting a war against the Crown of Castile, he expanded his father's territorial gains by taking Bedmar. He then negotiated a treaty with Castile, which confirmed Granada's new border in return for Muhammad III being a vassal of Ferdinand IV and paying him tribute." only five days ago?
As I said, I'm fine with describing specific acts of vassalage/fealty, as was done by Muhammad III in 1304 in the sentence you quoted. But as per Harvey, I don't want to simplify matters too much by classifying Granada, an entity lasting 250 years with a complicated relationship with Castile, as a vassal state. HaEr48 (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But you weren't talking about 250 years, only five. Harvey (1990) is only one source, but there are many sources. Harvey is a monograph. You need to examine tertiary sources, such as other encyclopedias or textbooks for assessing due weight. (See WP:TERTIARY) Britannica, for example, says, "Muḥammad I secured the recognition of Ferdinand III of Castile (his neighbour on all landed frontiers) in return for a vassalage which, though often ignored, remained in force until the kingdom’s disappearance in 1492." Callaghan's textbook, A History of Medieval Spain, 2013, Cornell University Press, says, "Granada was a vassal state of Castile from 1246 onward, owing an annual tribute, though the tie was often broken." (see here). Another textbook, Bernard Reilly's The Medieval Spains, Cambridge U.P., 1992, says, " By any measure, then, Muslim Granada was a tiny kingdom surrounded by formidable foes on whose lassitude or forbearance it must count to survive. It could and would attempt to play the one against the other and the North African Muslim realms against one or both. In the end, all was to prove unavailing yet that end was successfully delayed for some two and a half centuries. During all of this time, Granada was, by Castilian reckoning, a vassal state and either paid or owed parias in the amount set variously between 15o,000 and 300,000 maravedis per annum. It would be a pretty task to compute how much was actually paid but it was sufficient to maintain the crown of Castile's gold coinage fairly stable through the economically troubled years of the period." Clearly, due weight requires us to mention a vassal state, a tributary state, qualified, if you will in some way, to be mentioned in the first few sentences in the article, well before cruelty and culture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the end of the day, we have medieval vassalage, for which we have the well-worn usage of feudalism. Why are you using (in the lead) terms such as "government," "coup d' etat," or "foreign policy," which don't belong to feudalism? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ O'Callaghan, Joseph F. (2013), A History of Medieval Spain, Cornell University Press, pp. 625–, ISBN 978-0-8014-6871-1 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help)
  2. ^ Bradbury, Jim (2 August 2004), The Routledge Companion to Medieval Warfare, Routledge, pp. 223–, ISBN 978-1-134-59847-2 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |authormask=, and |laysummary= (help)
  3. ^ Kohn, George Childs (2013), Dictionary of Wars, Routledge, pp. 463–, ISBN 978-1-135-95494-9 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help)
  4. ^ Reilly, Bernard F. (1993), The Medieval Spains, Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–, ISBN 978-0-521-39741-4 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help)
  5. ^ Bouza, Fernando; Cardim, Pedro; Feros, Antonio (9 September 2019), The Iberian World: 1450–1820, Taylor & Francis, pp. 1427–, ISBN 978-1-00-053705-5 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help)
  6. ^ Findlay, Ronald; Lundahl, Mats (16 November 2016), The Economics of the Frontier: Conquest and Settlement, Springer, pp. 52–, ISBN 978-1-137-60237-4 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help)
  7. ^ Hough, Jerry F.; Grier, Robin (30 April 2015), The Long Process of Development, Cambridge University Press, pp. 86–, ISBN 978-1-107-67041-9 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |laysummary=, and |authormask= (help)
I'm replying primarily to acknowledge that I've read F&F's reply to myself (via ping) and HaEr48. It was not obvious to me that you meant regnal name, as opposed to title. I don't know the value of playing with semantics, and I've not seen anyone else concern themselves with it (anywhere on Wikipedia except AN/ANI and ArbCom). If it matters, there are viable solutions. E.g. He ascended the throne after the death of his father, Muhammad II. He had a reputation [for culture and cruelty/of being cultured and cruel], and was rumoured to have poisoned his father. For the record, Harvery writes:

The agreement, ratified in January 1302, was never put to the test, for in April 1302 Muhammad II died. A story was put about that he had been poisoned by a sweetmeat administered by his heir. We have no means of telling what really happened. Reports of extreme cruelty inflicted on others by Muhammad III do indicate that his was an abnormal psychological make-up.

As far as I can tell, both Kennedy and Harvey reference the rumoured murder in relation to Muhammad III's cruelty and mental state. In which case, semantically, cultured does not belong in that sentence. E.g. He had a reputation for cruelty, and was rumoured to have poisoned his father. Although, refer to p. 166–167 of Harvey for both cruelty and culture. But, let me repeat myself, I don't know that this matters. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two sentences about the Castile-Granada relationship and the vassalage (from the Castilian point of view) to the background. I disagree that we should delve into that much detail in the very first sentence of the lead. HaEr48 (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As suggested, I've removed "coup d'état", but in my opinion "government" and "foreign policy" are generic and descriptive term and I disagree that we can't use them for medieval kingdoms. But I'm open to suggestion if you have other terminologies in mind. HaEr48 (talk)
Concerns of Fowler&fowler IV: The Poetry section
@HaEr48: I was looking at the poetry/personality section. It would be nice to have the poem written out in the original Arabic in the left column, the Romanized Arabic transliteration in the middle column and the English translation in the right column. Can you do that? It would be a nice touch giving readers, most of whom are unlikely to have even a smattering of a knowldge of the script, a feel for the sounds of the language and its poetry. Something along the lines of Lab Pe Aati Hai Dua or Sare_Jahan_se_Accha#Text_of_poem, which are, of course, Urdu poems composed by the Pakistani poet Muhammad Iqbal. As it stands, the Arabic script—an image, File:Muhammad III's poem in Ibn al-Khatib's al-Lamha (cropped).png, from one page from a book you added a few days ago—seems disconnected to the translation accompanying it, Muhammad_III_of_Granada#Personality. The script has 16 rhyming lines, split into groups of 7 and 9; the translation has only 14. Or is it a translation of the top half of the script page (with seven lines each separated into two halves)? Is the word before the colon in the top half أملطولات ? Is that the name of the poet? The speaker? What does it mean? Is it ومنها before the second colon? Again, what does it mean? Is the poem a ghazal? If so, what is the radif and what is its meaning? I can see that it rhymes, of course. The script has a title and two lines below it, which the translation does not have. Some illumination for an ordinary reader will be most helpful. It doesn't have to be as detailed as I've asked for ... but still. It is not unreasonable to ask for this in an FA, given that the other pages above are just stubs, have been stubs for years, maintained by fans, with no higher ambition than preserving memories of long ago. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC) Updating after adding ping. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted poem is the 7 lines separated into halves - now I clarified this in the caption. I've added answers to your question about the parts of the book page in the description of the File:Muhammad III's poem in Ibn al-Khatib's al-Lamha (cropped).png Commons page, let me know if you have more questions. It is not the right period or place for ghazal, so I don't think so. As for the Arabic transcription, per WP:NOFULLTEXT I think it will be better for wikisource, I'll work on that in the next few days hopefully. HaEr48 (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are unwilling to add a Romanized Arabic transliteration citing, WP:NOFULLTEXT, then why do you have the full printed Naskh (Arabic) versions of two poems in the image, taken from a screengrab after the FAC had begun? Why do you have the full English translation? I asked; "Is the word before the colon in the top half أملطولات? Is that the name of the poet? The speaker? What does it mean? Is it ومنها before the second colon? Again, what does it mean?" You did not reply. I asked, "Is the poem a ghazal? If so, what is the radif and what is its meaning?" You replied, "It is not the right period or place." But, Cynthia Robinson in her chapter in Leoni, Francesca; Natif, Mika (2013). Eros and Sexuality in Islamic Art. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 69–. ISBN 978-1-4094-6438-9. mentions ghazals in the anthologies of al-Khatib. Another scholar, Shamsie, says, "The ghazal, ... were written in al-Andalus until the ban on all Arabic literature and customs after the fall of Granada of 1492." (here (scroll down to the fifth paragraph)) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOFULLTEXT does allow shorter texts like a short poem to be added. I think it is a subjective matter of judgement, personally I feel an English translation (that can be understood by most readers) and and a page scan as illustration is enough, but more details on this historical text belong to Wikisource in my opinion.
As for your questions, أملطولات is not the name of the author, it is just the end of the preceding paragraph introducing Muhammad III's poetry. I added some explanation in the Commons file description (where I think it belongs). ومنها ("and [also] among them:") is similarly just introducing the next poem. I might be wrong on the period of ghazal (I apologize), but still the sources I have at hand do not refer to this particular poem is a ghazal or mention anything about radif. 00:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
You cite NOFULLTEXT as the WP page for disallowing a Romanized Arabic tranliteration. Yet you also cite it for allowing the English translation. You are right, NOFULLTEXT, allows short pieces to be displayed from sources out of copyright. It gives Lincoln's Gettysburg address as an example of such a source. But LGA has 271 words and 1450 characters; your poem has 110 words and 573 characters. NOFULLTEXT will clearly allow a transliteration to accompany it. Otherwise, I don't see the value of a screen grab from a book found on archie.org. My concern is that you have very little that is reliable about his poetry. No criticism, no secondary sources, only a text. Yes you seem reluctant not only to add a Romanized Arabic transliteration, but also a translation of the two lines of introduction in the poem's of the screen grab. Not in the image's file, but in the article. I'm afraid you'll have to do some work. Otherwise, it is best to remove both the screen grab and the translation, both added without ample justification long after the FAC had begun. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say WP:NOFULLTEXT disallows original text, I just think it discourages excessive inclusion of it. The inclusion of the English translation and page scan was added after suggestions by other reviewers (FunkMonk and Haukurth), and I think those are reasonable enough (and not excessive) so I added them. The first two lines that you want added are just Ibn al-Khatib's (relatively unremarkable) intro, it is not relevant enough to translate/quote in full in the article. It might be appropriate for Wikisource. HaEr48 (talk) 04:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: The suggeston of FunkMonk and Haukurth was a fine suggestion, but you can't reproduce a poem written before 1309 in Andalusia without giving some details. Was the poem written in Andalusian Arabic (which is somewhat unlikely as it wasn't the language of high culture}, or Classical Arabic but with some stylistics of Andalusian Arabic? Is the 1927 edition of al-Khatib a rendering in Modern Standard Arabic? (Despite the Quran, there are literary distinctions in the two.) For the purposes of giving a reader a sampling of his poetry, the entire poem is not needed. You can give us only the last three of seven lines, beginning with: "I hid my ailment from the eyes of men ..." But it is important that you present the Arabic script along with the English translation in the text and not in a scan, so that interested readers can read the Arabic clearly and check the translation for its accuracy. (As done, for example in the left and right columns in Urdu in Lab Pe Aati Hai Dua.) The last three lines in Arabic, and their English translation will together be less than what you have currently in place. So, NOFULLTEXT will not be an issue. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. In my opinion, the purpose of the addition is to give flavour and illustration of Muhammad III's personality, not to engage in a critical analysis of the poem or the Arabic text. If someone wants to check the translation, that's absolutely fine, they can always go to the cited source (which is freely available online, btw) and verify it, this is the usual practice in Wikipedia. This is a biography of a king, who happens to write poetry. It is different than the Lab Pe Aati Hai Dua example you gave, which is indeed about a poem. I feel cutting the English text to just 3 lines in order to make space for the Arabic transcript (which most readers won't understand anyway) will not serve the illustration purpose. HaEr48 (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added the original Arabic to the ref tag as quotation, I hope it's a reasonable compromise? HaEr48 (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but it is not clear at this point which poem Rachel Arie is referring to, which edition of Al-Lamha, etc. I have requested of you (a) from Rachel Arie's work, a quotation of the the current sentence about the qasida, the sentence before the current sentence, and the full citation after the current sentence, mentioning the edition, date, location of publication of the Al-Lamha and (b) from the Spanish translation (2010) the introductory two lines above the poem, and the first two lines of the poem. The request is in accordance with MOS:QUOTE. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:14, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: I am requesting you (some of which I have requested before and am requesting again) for: (a) Where does Ibn al-Khatib say in the 1927/28 edition of Al Lamha that "both poems are works of Muhammad III? Please provide the page number and the Arabic script. (b) What is the full French citation of Rachel Arie, and the (French) sentence before the sentence that you have kindly provided? (c) Please provide the introduction in Spanish (two lines) and the first two lines (again in Spanish) of the poem from the Spanish translation of Ibn al-Khatib, 2010 and (d) Why does page 49 (the poems) of a 152 page (with possibly 119 pages of real text) correspond to page 157-158 in the Spanish edition of 285 pages? Does the Spanish edition have a long introduction? If so how long? On what page does the actual Al Lamha text begin? All this is in consonance with MOS:QUOTE. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:43, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the two additional quotations from the sources as you requested. I have added six full quotations to the footnotes as per your request. To be honest this is quite time consuming, please consider just reading the online source (this is avalable for Rubiera Mata 1996, Rubiera Mata 1969, Vidal Castro, and Ibn al-Khatib Arabic which you requested), and getting the rest from WP:RX. They can give you full pages, which will give you more context and understanding than just piecemeal sentences.
  • to understand why both poems are works of Muhammad III, you need to read the page in context. The poems is in p.49 of the cited Arabic editor (you can read it here, it's a big pain for me to type because I don't have an Arabic keyboard). It is in the chapter of Muhammad III, in the heading "His poetry" under that chapter, aand began with an intro about the fact Muhammad III wrote poetry, and that Ibn al-Khatib has seen a collection of them. Then he says one of them is the following, then a poem follows, and then he added "and [also] among [the poetry]:", followed by another poetry. In this context, I think anyone would conclude that Ibn al-Khatib is saying both of them belong to Muhammad III.
  • added full citation as given by Arié, it is practically the same as the full citation given at the end of the article. The preceding sentence pertains to Muhammad II (not III), so I don't feel it relevant to quote. If you'd like to read it though, you could request from WP:RX.
  • I added the first two lines of the poem. The introduction is quite long, please request WP:RX to give you a copy if you want to read it.

HaEr48 (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are right that it is in page 157-158 of the Spanish edition because the Spanish edition begins with a long introduction chapter from the translator/editor. The actual translation starts from page 100 or so.
@HaEr48: It doesn't matter that the preceding sentence of Arie pertains to Muhammad II, I have still requested it to see what context the current sentence is written in. I am also requesting the sentence after the current sentence. Three sentences and a citation is not a violation of MOS:QUOTE. Understanding the context is important. You have to understand, you have chosen to write and article using non-English language sources. The burden is on you to help a reviewer in making sure that the information is cited to the correct page, to the correct text on that page, and that it has been correctly paraphrased. I'm sorry that you do not have an Arabic language keyboard, but you should have thought about that before using a blurry scan of a 1927 book. Also, the English translation that you have presented, is it a translation of the Arabic (1927) or the Spanish (2010). We need to be clear about that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: As for: " chapter of Muhammad III, in the heading "His poetry" under that chapter, and began with an intro about the fact Muhammad III wrote poetry," please tell me the exact page numbers and lines for these in the 1927 edition. Thanks Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter title for Muhammad III is in page 47. "His poetry" heading is in the first line of p. 49. Intro about the fact Muhammad III wrote poetry is in the next three lines after the "his poetry" heading. HaEr48 (talk) 14:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Syntax and sourcing:

  • Sentence 1: Historian Ibn al-Khatib, active in mid-fourteenth century Granada, wrote about Muhammad III's "brutishness and cruelty" that at the start of his reign he imprisoned his father's household troops and then refused to feed them. (I will add my rewrite at the end.)
    • Harvey's book, to which this is cited, in fact, prefaces this with a summary preview of sorts: "Ibn al-Khatib depicts a personality schizophrenically dominated by conflicting traits." It is important to paraphrase this first so that the reader knows what the account that follows it is about.
  • "Historian Ibn al-Khatib."
    • You have already mentioned IaK in several places. He is a bit of a polymath. Now is not the time to tell the reader matter-of-factly add that he is a historian when earlier he was mentioned only by name. There shouldn't be surprises for a reader when he reads. New information needs to be added incrementally and explicitly, not implicitly and absuptly. It is better at this stage to write, "Ibn al-Khatib, who wrote histories and poetry, ...
  • active in mid-fourteenth century Granada
    • "active" is not a precise word when describing a creative polymath. We are not talking about being active (i.e. participating, Webster's Unabridged) in the beach volleyball league of Andalusia. It is someone who flourished (flourish: to be in a state of activity or production — used chiefly of creative workers such as painters or writers, Webster's Unabridged). So, formally, it would be better to have: ... and who [[floruit|flourished]] in the period 1331–1354,<cited to Kennedy, page 288> described ... (but something simpler might suffice; see below)
    • We don't need "Granada." It is understood.
  • wrote about Muhammad III's "brutishness ..."
    • al-Khati (b. 1313, d.1374) only heard about the personality disorders of M-III (d. 1309). Harvey's sentence is: He sets out in full "what is related concerning his brutishness and cruelty," i.e. what is told, what is heard, what is recounted, etc.
  • "brutishness and cruelty"
    • "brutishness and cruelty" is in quotes, implying this is taken from someone. The text cites Harvey, but Harvey who also has quotes, cites Ibn al-Khatib, Lisān al-Dīn; 1973, Kitāb al-Iḥāṭa, Volume I, Cairo, pages 547–48. So, in my view, you will need to cite both.
  • "... and cruelty" that ...
    • grammatically, you will need a comma after cruelty,
      • "That" has dozens of meanings. When you use "that" in such a grammatical form, what follows it in the sentence is usually understood to be a relatively self-contained addition. But in your case, that description continues long after the sentence has ended, several sentences after. In Harvey, there is no "that," only another, longer, direct quote, from the same 1973 volume.

Summing up, I would rewrite this as: Ibn al-Khatib, who wrote histories and poetry in the period 1331–1354,<cited to Kennedy, page 288> considered Muhammad III to have been ruled by conflicting impulses.<cited to Harvey's preview) al-Khatib told a story he had heard about Muhammad III's irrational cruelty.<cited to Harvey, Ibn al-Khatib 1973> (I would forego the direct quote, "brutishness and cruelty," for in any case it is translated, forego even floruit, but would keep both citations, then paraphrase the quoted paragraph in Harvey) @HaEr48: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:28, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

        • Thanks for including specific recommendations. I've updated—mostly following your suggestions—and this passage now reads: Ibn al-Khatib, who wrote histories and poetry in mid-fourteenth century, considered Muhammad III to have been ruled by conflicting impulses.[1] Ibn al-Khatib told a story he had heard about Muhammad III's irrational cruelty: at the start of his reign, [the cruelty story follows]. HaEr48 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)~[reply]
You are very welcome, but I hope you do understand that the above post is more than just a specific, actionable, recommendation; it is a specific example of how to cite, interpret, and paraphrase. I might be able to do this here and there, but I doubt I will be able to do this for every sentence. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final note: I will shortly be taking a vacation from Wikipedia during which the article will come up for a decision. I'm not reassured that there is no original research in the article. As you will see in my poetry critique above, I've had to squeeze the nominator for every little bit of information. This reluctance is probably nothing deliberate on his part, just the style in which he has communicated with reviewers in the past. After much urging, the trail of evidence and logic that has emerged about the poem in the poetry section seems to be:
    • A blurry text, Al lamha, written by Ibn al-Khatib (died 1374 CE), available on archive.org, probably (but this too is by no means certain) in a translation into Modern Standard Arabic (ca 1927).
    • In it appears a poem claimed to have been written by the Sultan of Granada, Muhammad III, who died in 1309 CE, and who normally spoke Andalusian Arabic, but wrote in Classical Arabic.
    • The claim is based on a 1973 book in French by Rachel Arie, which states that one poem of Muhammad III appears on page 49 of the same blurry 1927 Arabic text.
    • However, there are two poems on page 49. This too is the result of my questioning; before it, only one had been acknowledged.
    • There is also a 2010 Spanish translation of the same Al lamha (1927) text, which is not available online even in snippet form.
    • The nominator then uses an argument to establish that both poems on page 49 are written by the Sultan. This is best expressed in his words, "it's a big pain for me to type because I don't have an Arabic keyboard). It is in the chapter of Muhammad III, in the heading "His poetry" under that chapter, aand began with an intro about the fact Muhammad III wrote poetry, and that Ibn al-Khatib has seen a collection of them. Then he says one of them is the following, then a poem follows, and then he added "and [also] among [the poetry]:", followed by another poetry. In this context, I think anyone would conclude that Ibn al-Khatib is saying both of them belong to Muhammad III."
    • There is an English translation appearing in the poetry section. It is not at all clear to the reviewer if this is the nominator's translation of the 1927 Arabic or of the 2010 Spanish. Nothing is transparent, and this is just the poetry section. In light of this tangled tale, my considered decision is to continue to Oppose Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»
      • I disagree that "nothing is transparent". I'll not object to your rewording of the sentence as "One qasida composed by him is presented in full in Ibn al-Khatib's Al-Lamha." even though I prefer the old version. This sentence is supported by Arié (and I have provided the quotation supporting this in the footnote as requested). The actual poem appears in two edition of the page referenced by Arié: one Spanish translation from 2010 and one Arabic edition from c. 1927 (no one is saying that it's "a translation into Modern Standard Arabic" as you claimed, it's just an edition published by a modern editor). The Arabic is available online, and linked in the Sources section. I understand you repeatedly said that it is "too blurry". I agree it is not the best resolution possible, but it is still very readable and verifiable by anyone who reads Arabic. Zooming in will help (if you haven't done it). And anyway I've transcribed all its 9 lines in the footnotes section, despite it being hard to do without an Arabic keyboard. There is also the Spanish translation, and I've given you quotations from that too. Indeed snippets are not available online, but I listed it in order to give people an additional way to verify the source (e.g. if they have offline access). HaEr48 (talk) 17:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coordinators @FAC coordinators: : Multiple editors have questioned the usefulness or constructiveness of this part of the review, and I agree. Many of the "concerns" are semantic quibbles with little value, and they are accompanied by long and argumentative rebukes that make it hard to see what specific actionable improvements the reviewer is proposing. I think (Mr rnddude and Mimihitam, who weren't involved in authoring this article) agree with this, if I understand their comments above correctly. When we tried in good faith to address this reviewer's concerns, the reviewer comes up with more argumentative quibbles. Since this reviewer commented, this discussion page has grown from 19,000 to 51,000 bytes and several days later we're still in the lead section. With respect to the reviewer, I don't think this is a productive way to spend everyone's time. If it's okay with coordinators, I'll still read the comments, but will only act on the more actionable and useful ones, if any. Mimihitam has even suggested to stop responding to this reviewer entirely, but I hope I don't have to do that. HaEr48 (talk) 12:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problems of grammar and style stem in great part from a lack of integrating the sources. For example, the nominator doesn't know how much significance to assign to the rumored death by poisoning of the subject's father. The nominator's reply to my point about Granada being a vassal state (supported with seven sources) speaks to something similar. A few days ago, he had the sentences, "Inheriting a war against the Crown of Castile, he expanded his father's territorial gains by taking Bedmar. He then negotiated a treaty with Castile, which confirmed Granada's new border in return for Muhammad III being a vassal of Ferdinand IV and paying him tribute." (See here) When I pointed out some syntactical and stylistic errors in the first sentence, he removed both sentences, which wasn't what I was suggesting. He changed the second to: "He negotiated a treaty with Castile the following year, in which Granada's conquests were recognized in return for Muhammad making an oath of fealty to the King of Castille, Ferdinand IV, paying him tribute." When I asked him why vassal was not mentioned, he cited Harvey, a monograph on Muslim Spain, which states that Granada was not a vassal in the strict sense of the term. But intermittent vassalage or uneven tributary status were not uncommon in medieval or early modern times. (See the lead of Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760)) The nominator can use, "a nominal vassal state," "an intermittent vassal state," a "formal tributary state," ... there are all sorts of ways of succinctly expressing those nuances in the writing of history. An encyclopedic account does not shirk from using these terms and veer off instead to tell us about fealty and fidelity. The problem is that every sentence of the article has these errors. I suggest something. The nominator balks and replaces it with another error- or POV-ridden formulation. It took me a while to realize that it stems from the incomplete integration of the sources. This is not promising. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Harvey: The Castilian assertion of Granada's vassal status has been so successful, however, that the theory underlies most thinking on this aspect of peninsular history and, on p. 54, The year 1264 is also a vital date in the history of Granada. From this point onwards there may be truces and long periods of peace between Castile and Granada, rather empty mention may even be made at times of Granda's vassal status, but nobody is taken in. In other words, at most, Granada was a "vassal" but it was never really a vassal.
Kennedy maintains a similar view: The Christian sources say that he became [Fernano III's] vassal, but too much importance should not be attached to this. At various times Ibn al-Ahmar pedged his loyalty to Ibn Hud, the Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad and Hafsids of Tunis. All these moves were temporary and tactical. More striking was his policy of accepting the Castilian alliance, buying peace for himself with the catastrophe of other, expendable, Muslims. In other words, Granada was a "vassal" to whomever it suited them to be a "vassal" of at the time. That's two sources who treat the vassalization as near fictitious. So it would be blasé to write that "Granada was a vassal state of Castile".
I think tributary state works, because this would reflect the reality of Muhammad III's rule – After inheriting a state at war, and staying at war for a year, he negotiated a peace with Fernando IV which included an "acknowledgement of vassalage" (Harvey p. 167) and tributary payments (Kennedy p. 286). Keep in mind the spirit in which "acknowledgement" is meant, had Harvey wanted to say that Granada became a vassal of Castile, he would have done so. Semantics, you see. I think the suggestion that "there are errors in every sentence" is hyperbolic at best. There is not an error in stating that Muhammad III ma[de] an oath of fealty to the King of Castille, Ferdinand IV, paying him tribute, as currently written in the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: Harvy is just one dated monograph. As I say above: You need to examine tertiary sources, such as other encyclopedias or textbooks for assessing due weight. (See WP:TERTIARY) Britannica, for example, says, "Muḥammad I secured the recognition of Ferdinand III of Castile (his neighbour on all landed frontiers) in return for a vassalage which, though often ignored, remained in force until the kingdom’s disappearance in 1492." Callaghan's textbook, A History of Medieval Spain, 2013, Cornell University Press, says, "Granada was a vassal state of Castile from 1246 onward, owing an annual tribute, though the tie was often broken." (see here). Another textbook, Bernard Reilly's The Medieval Spains, Cambridge U.P., 1992, says, " By any measure, then, Muslim Granada was a tiny kingdom surrounded by formidable foes on whose lassitude or forbearance it must count to survive. It could and would attempt to play the one against the other and the North African Muslim realms against one or both. In the end, all was to prove unavailing yet that end was successfully delayed for some two and a half centuries. During all of this time, Granada was, by Castilian reckoning, a vassal state and either paid or owed parias in the amount set variously between 15o,000 and 300,000 maravedis per annum. It would be a pretty task to compute how much was actually paid but it was sufficient to maintain the crown of Castile's gold coinage fairly stable through the economically troubled years of the period." Clearly, due weight requires us to mention a vassal state, a tributary state, qualified, if you will in some way, in the first few sentences in the article, well before cruelty and culture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS I suggest respectfully that you not nip at the heels of my every edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above argument about vassalage/tribute is the same argument as already discussed above, so I'll reply above to consolidate the discussion. HaEr48 (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been pinged back here three or four times now. I wouldn't even know about these latest comments if I hadn't been pinged by HaEr48. You might notice that I've replied three hours after your comment, and four since the ping. I am not following your edits, I am following my pings. Laser brain – do take note of that fact as well, I've edited here only after being pinged (with the exception of my first edit, which came from things I saw on my watchlist and concluded needed intervening (and I was not alone in that conclusion)). Actually, amidst all the hattings and third-party comments, I was thinking of suggesting that some of it be moved to the article talk page, since reviews are not usually where content disputes are hashed out. Mr rnddude (talk) 18:05, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HaEr48: If you don't want to act on a comment, as a coordinator I'd prefer that you state your reasons for disagreement and our job when we close the nomination is to determine if there's consensus to promote despite open opposition. There are collegial ways to disagree with someone's remarks and move on. I'm dismayed to see a good faith reviewer's remarks dismissed as "rebukes" or "quibbles" and I'd be inclined to archive the nomination if harangues of reviewers continue. --Laser brain (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Laser_brain Sorry, I don't mean to harangue reviewers or doubt their good faith. I apologise to everyone (especially Fowler&fowler) if that's how it comes across. I was just hoping to get some guidance from coordinators. You're absolutely right, I'll continue to engage respectfully and adopt the suggestions that are useful and constructive (and explain the reason if I think otherwise). HaEr48 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources checked and working
  • Formats
  • Ref 51 requires pp. not p.
  • Vidal Castro needs language
  • Template error (date=) in the primary sources.
  • Ibn al-Khaṭīb (2010): "Translated by Emilio Molina López" - translated into what from what?
  • Quality/reliability: I can't comment on the foreign-language sources although their provenance looks good. Otherwise, the sources appear to meet the requirements of the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by T8612

[edit]

Coordinator comment - I struggled with actioning the nomination due to the depth of commentary by F&F and the outstanding opposition. However, after reading throught the other reviews I've determined there is consensus for promotion. HaEr48, please don't take the promotion as an indication that I thought F&F's review was without merit. I'm sure his comments were in the interest of improving the article. --Laser brain (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 3 November 2019 [49].

2019 World Snooker Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC) and Rodney Baggins (talk)[reply]

This article is about the world snooker championship from earlier this year. The championship was the first time an amateur player qualified, and defeated the world number one in the first round! Judd Trump finally won his first world title, defeating Scot John Higgins in the final. It's a relatively long read, but covers the event's history, the individual matches, qualifying, century breaks and broadcasting. Please let me know if there is anything that needs working on.

Co-nominated with: Rodney Baggins who has done a tonne of work to make sure the prose is tight. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]

I reviewed this at WP:GAN and Lee did a lot of work for that to pass. Since then Rodney Baggins has really polished the article. I have nothing substantial to add other than my support. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 16:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from nigej

[edit]

Article is of high quality, I have made a few minor comments below. Nigej (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting the nomination. I've made some changes to the article and tried to answer your other queries, but some things Lee will need to help me with. Thanks for all your comments. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
[edit]
  • "... an amateur player appeared at the main stage of the event. Debutant James Cahill ..." It was not immediately clear to me whether Cahill was that amateur or whether it someone else unnamed.
    • Would it work with a colon between the two sentences: "For the first time in the history of the world championship, an amateur player appeared at the main stage of the event: debutant James Cahill defeated world number one Ronnie O'Sullivan in the first round, before being narrowly defeated by Stephen Maguire in a second round deciding frame." Or is that still ambiguous? Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Format
[edit]
  • "finishing three days before the start of the main draw." - would prefer "event" or similar, for "draw", which means something else to me.
  • "The remaining 15 seeds were allocated based on the latest world rankings, which were released after the China Open." I am left wondering whether there had been any great excitement during the China Open as to who would make it to the top 16. Not sure there was this year.
  • "The event" covers qualifying. I mean there obviously was some press about who might make it, but I feel that's information for the China open. There was some press about it at the start of the season, same as every season. If someone missed out by a few points, or if a match at the China open in particular was the difference, I'd mention it, but not really worthwhile otherwise. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First round
[edit]
  • "The draw for the first round of the championship was made on 18 April 2019" but the reference is dated 16 April. I think 18th is correct. Perhaps we need a different reference with the correct date on it.
→ I can look into this. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've looked into this and indeed the official statement from the WPBSA is dated Tuesday 16 April, 6:17 pm. @Lee Vilenski: do we know for a fact that the draw actually took place on Thursday 18th? If the qualifying rounds finished on the 16th, is it not feasible that the draw took place that same day in the evening, as soon as the qualifiers were known? Was it televised? Is the WPBSA ref. likely to be dated wrong? Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it was streamed on YouTube - [50] for the 18th. It's likely the WPBSA item was created for information about the draw, and then changed afterwards. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(the first being John Parrott's defeat of Eddie Charlton in the first round of the 1992 championship)" - do we need brackets or just a comma before it. (also for "(breaking the previous record set in 2016 by Mark Selby and Marco Fu by more than three minutes)")
→ I normally prefer to use parenthesis when the bracketed clause is not essential for the meaning of the sentence, which would stand on its own just as well without the additional info. The clause in parenthesis is just provided to add context, or answer a query that might come up in the reader's mind (almost like a stage whisper). And sometimes, as in both of the examples here, including the "aside" as part of the main sentence just makes the sentence clause-heavy. The brackets help to break it up a bit. That's how I see it anyway. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "baulk pocket" perhaps "yellow pocket"/"green pocket" are better understood nowadays and more precise.
→ Yes, we could change this to "missed a risky pot into the yellow pocket" and then "went into the green pocket". Although 'baulk' is linked to the glossary definition so should be clear enough. What do you think Lee? Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second round
[edit]
  • "This match included nine century breaks altogether" not sure we need "altogether"
  • "four consecutive century breaks had been compiled" perhaps " four century breaks had been compiled in consecutive frames"
 Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quarter-finals
[edit]
  • "bringing the score to 9–7 ahead of the final session" comma before "ahead"
  • "Trump had won six straight frames to conclude his second round match against Ding Junhui; he won another six consecutive frames at the start of this match" reads oddly, perhaps "Trump, having won six straight frames to conclude his second round match against Ding Junhui; won another six consecutive frames at the start of this match"
  • "Gilbert took the final two frames". Prefer "next two frames". Only "final" in hindsight. Similarly "with a century break of 101 in the final frame", prefer "next" to "final"
Disagree with 1st point (comma not needed) but otherwise  Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Final
[edit]
  • "He had previously won the world championship four times (in 1998, 2007, 2009 and 2011), one short of the record held by Stephen Hendry." has me mystified.
  • "which prevented the match from concluding early with a session to spare" not sure we need "early"
 Done Thank you for noticing the Hendry blunder. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
General
[edit]
  • The use of the term "amateur", meaning someone not on the main tour, still seems very odd to me. They are not really amateurs in that they take the prize money. Perhaps this strange use of the term should be explained for old-fashioned folk like me.
  • I think the whole "amateurs don't get paid" thing is pretty much a golf thing. I don't know of any other sports that operate in this way. Sadly, sources all call him an amateur, as did the media around the event. I don't know that there are many other ways to phrase this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Betty Logan

[edit]

Reviewing an article of this quality always feels a bit like nitpicking but here are my observations:

  • I think the lead should mention Murphy's whitewash of his opponent in the first round—only the second in Crucible history—and also the 11-century record in the final.
  • The term "In modern times" (Background, 1st para) is subjective and vague. Could this be changed to "In the 21st century" or "Since the game went open in 1991" or something to that effect, to qualify what we mean by modern times. The process of internationalisation began in the 1990s so it would help to be more specific.
  • Similarly, the sentence "Stephen Hendry is the most successful player in the modern era" (Background, 3rd para) similarly uses WP:JARGON. The "modern era" is generally understood to mean since the annual KO format was adopted in 1969, so could we please define the modern era and add in a date. Absolutely no-one but a snooker anorak will understand the context of the term.
  • In the "Format" section could we have a basic description of the multi-session format please. This does come in later in the article but it would be helpful if this information were also included in the format section. I would recommend a paragraph that covers the number of frames played in each round, the number of sessions and the number of frames in those sessions. Basically so someone could just read the format section and get an understanding of the general outline of the competition.
  • "Gould then won frame 11, but Williams claimed the next two frames to open up a 5-frame lead" -> five-frame lead (First round, Top half, para #1)
 Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the reference styles are not consistent. For example, many World Snooker citations either credit the source as "World Snooker" or "worldsnooker.com". Compare #1 & #5.
 Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same goes for Sporting Life too. Compare #24 and #29 to #66, #67 & #69. Either style is fine but they need to be consistent.
 Done Here the website is effectively the same as the publisher, so (IMO) there's no need to include a separate publisher as in the World Snooker example where WPBSA publish the website worldsnooker.com as well as wpbsa.com Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #61 (marked as a dead link) needs to be replaced.
 Done Found a Sporting Life ref. to replace this, need to go through the para next to check everything's sourced OK. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is of very high quality and there are no fundamental problems preventing its progress to FA status. We just need to address some of the jargon issues and sort out the referencing and it's good to go. Thanks a lot for your work on this Lee & Rodney. Betty Logan (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments Betty, there's some interesting stuff in there. I was overtaken by events yesterday, hence the late acknowledgement. Will try to address some of the issues today. I think you're right about the additions to the lead, as they were notable features of the tournament. I admit I never did get round to going through the references in minute detail, and there are probably a few things that need sorting out there so I'll get onto it. Ref.61 definitely needs removing and I've a feeling the info is covered in one or more of the existing citations anyway so it should all iron out. I'll get onto that later today. Look forward to hearing Lee's feedback too. Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I need to ask you (this also applies to Nigej): has it occurred to you that the TOC limit is making it difficult to navigate round the article? I'm particularly concerned about lack of access to the individual subsections of the Tournament summary section, which is rather long, and I'd find it useful to be able to jump down quickly to the Quarter-finals (for example) from the TOC. I understand from Lee that the TOC was limited to level 2 after a previous discussion for the GA review but I wonder if we need to readdress it? I agree that a lengthy TOC is not great because it leaves lots of empty space top-right, but the whole point of the TOC is to help the reader quickly find what they're looking for in such a big article. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the TOC is too short. One extra level would be better in my view. Nigej (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be helpful to be able to access each round from the contents. I am not aware of the previous GA that suggested this, but it's certainly not required by MOS:SNOOKER. Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and made this {{TOC|3}}. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Betty Logan - thanks for your comments. Did we get all of the issues with this, or is there more outstanding? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support FA, Lee. Great work again. Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KyleJoan

[edit]

It is undisputed that this article is of superb quality. I'm only slightly familiar with snooker, so learning about this year's tournament from analyzing this article has been enlightening. I do have some comments, but at this stage, they're mere suggestions.

  • In modern times, however, it has become increasingly popular worldwide, especially in East and Southeast Asian nations such as China, Hong Kong and Thailand. "Modern times" in this context seems ambiguous. Would "recent times" better reflect the timeline of diversification? The term "recent" to me evokes a sense of decades, while "modern" is more extensive. I also wouldn't be opposed to changing the term to "modern era" and utilizing the modern era note from a few sentences below to better illustrate a timeframe.
I'll see what other people think, but I've made the change. This might be a solution to an issue I've been having for a while. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The event was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred. I understand this is specific to the 2019 tournament. Would it be superfluous to add some details regarding whether the same company sponsored previous tournaments?
I don't think it's superfluous at all. I think the issue is sourcing on this one. Without putting down the sourcing for each individual event, it might be difficult to show. I'd like to have The event was sponsored by sports betting company Betfred, who have sponsored the event since 2015. but I'd need a source stating this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the final, Higgins praised Trump's performance, "I was the lucky one to not have to pay for a ticket, he was just awesome". Maybe add "stating" (i.e. "After the final, Higgins praised Trump's performance, stating: "I was . . .")?
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wilson, ranked 30 in the world, said that "Judd deserved to win" . . . This sentence isolates the player's rank between commas, while these do not: Jamie Jones ranked 61 was serving a suspension, and did not compete in the championships; Li Yuan ranked 97 did not compete in the championships. Maybe isolate the latter two sentences as well?
  • Jamie Jones ranked 61 was serving a suspension, and did not compete in the championships. I personally feel "thus" would be more appropriate in this context than "and" to annotate cause and effect.
I must say I'm not a fan of the word "thus", as it implies something that may not be strictly accurate. Yes, Jones did sit the event out because he was suspended. However, it's possible he could have reprevied, or gotten around this somehow. I prefer "so" to "and" as it leaves it a bit more ambigious. Maybe Rodney Baggins would be a bit better on the wording than me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, it looks thorough and concise. Good luck! KyleJoantalk 01:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Kyle, very helpful. We've tried to address things as best we can, if you would like to check. I have found a couple of sources that we could use for the Betfred sponsorship issue, so I'll run that past Lee to see what he thinks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→ How about this... "The title sponsor of the event was sports betting company Betfred, who have sponsored the tournament every year since 2015.[51]" and possibly add an efn note... "Betfred previously sponsored the world championship from 2009 to 2012.[52]" ? First source is SportsBusiness Sponsorship, second is WPBSA. Unfortunately the WPBSA one doesn't fully cover the 2015 to 2019 period as it was published in 2015 and only looked forward to 2017 but not beyond, but it could be used for the note if we add one in. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
→ Or alternatively... "The title sponsor of the event was sports betting company Betfred, who have sponsored the tournament every year since 2015 (having previously sponsored the world championship from 2009 to 2012).[53][54]" ? Then we could just put both refs. together after the brackets. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like the second one. Great job on finding the sources! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The second description sounds excellent. Thanks for taking my suggestions into consideration! Changing the title of the subsection to annotate support now. KyleJoantalk 15:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from MWright96

[edit]
Background
  • I think United Kingdon should not be wikilinked per MOS:OVERLINK
I agree  Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Format
  • "while the other participants were placed randomly into the draw. " - the word in bold should be replaced to competitors to avoid reptiton of the word that is mentioned earlier in the sentence it is part of
  • "as well as 22 wildcard places allotted to non-tour players." - A wikilink of wildcard to Wild card (sports) would be benefical IMO
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Participant summary
  • "This was O'Sullivan's 27th consecutive appearance in the final stages of the World Championship since his debut in 1993," - wikilink 1993 to 1993 World Snooker Championship
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First round
  • " Williams opened up a lead in frame ten, before Gould made a clearance to force a respotted black, but it was Williams who potted the black to go ahead 7–3." - this is a run-on sentence that needs to be addressed
reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Williams clinched a "nervy" 17th frame" - is "nervy" actually needed here?
The word "nervy" was picked up from the BBC ref. but can easily be removed. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only the second ever to be witnessed at the Crucible" - better: second in history
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Sorry I disagree with this. "second in history to be witnessed" doesn't sound right. Reverted. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but then missed a risky pot" - risky should be replaced with an alternative word that is more formal
How is tricky? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not keen on tricky myself. I've changed it to "difficult" and I've changed "pot" to "shot". Alternatives might be awkward / uncertain / doubtful / delicate? Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Rodney's alternations to the wording here are adequate. MWright96 (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cahill missed a simple red after compiling an early break in frame 17" - straightforward red ball
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however, despite needing only the final pink and black to win," - final pink and black balls
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second round
  • "with just two reds remaining, he asked for the screen between the tables to be lifted" - red balls
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before Wilson won three consecutive frames to secure his place in the quarter-finals." - secure a place would be better suffice
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Higgins won the next two frames after a missed plant to win 13–11." - The sentence should mention that Bingham missed the plant per the source citing the information?
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded and reworded the Higgins/Bingham match now, if you'd like to go back and check? Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Am happy with the newly-worded sentence. MWright96 (talk) 10:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quarter finals
  • "when he was asked to sum up his performance in the match." - I believe summarise would be more formal in this instance
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-finals
  • "including a maximum attempt," - maximum break
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a crowd member was ejected for shouting out immediately" - make it clear the crowd member was ejected from the arena
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both players were "nervy" during the third session." - according to whom?
Just removed it. Seems pointless. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Final
  • "The final was played over four sessions, as a best-of-35-frames match." - added which dates the final was held as you've done for the other stages of the tournament
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was Higgins' third consecutive world championship final (having been defeated by Mark Selby in 2017 and Mark Williams in 2018), and his eighth world final overall." - just having worded the text highlighted in bold as and eighth overall. would suffice
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he played an impressive full-table double to pot the red ball," - try to avoid terms such as "impressive" and replace it with a more formal word
Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but then missed the following black." - black ball
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Qualifying
  • "Players ranked 17–80 in the 2018/2019 world rankings were seeded 1–64 in qualifying." - should be 17 to 80 and 1 to 64 per MOS:ENFROM
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Numbers given in brackets after players' names (in left-hand columns below) show the seedings (1–64) for the players ranked 17–80 in the 2018/2019 world rankings." - same issue as above
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage
  • "The tournament was broadcast live in the UK by" - should UK be worded as United Kingdom for consistency?
 Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Scotland, the BBC was criticised for showing the world championships on BBC Scotland," - how about televised for variety?
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think "televised" is a bit of an old-fashioned word. I've reworded the offending paragraph to make sure there's no repetition of "show" in it. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • References 2 and 5 require the page numbers that state the information in the article
I'm guessing it's 2 and 4, no? I've done the first one (it's covered in the full chapter one, although it's pretty obvious information that could be sourced anywhere.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Working We've picked up the Clive Everton book (ref.4), but assuming the other source that needs looking at is the Yorkshire Post newspaper citation (ref.2) we need someone with a subscription who can trawl through and pick out a page number. I did a free subscription, which gives you 3 free pages, but as the newspaper has 20 pages and no search function, I soon got in a pickle and came out with nothing! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Might just be easier to replace the citations in general. Can't imagine there isn't other sources for this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose you have a subscription to the Newspaper Archive do you Micheal? My thoughts on this one are that it's pretty much accepted that the World Snooker Championship is an annual cue sport tournament and the official world championship of the game of snooker, and as such doesn't need to be ref'd, or at least if it does maybe this should be done inside the main World Snooker Championship article? But isn't it a bit like saying Paris is the capital of France? Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I do not have a subscription to the British Newspaper Archive at the present time. MWright96 (talk) 12:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced both citations - MWright96 - is there more needed for this one? (thanks for your time!) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Matchroom Sport reference is good but I'm dubious about the DMC Leisure Saffron Walden & District Snooker League. It's hosted by the WordPress platform and the information comes from the World Snooker website. MWright96 (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I have simply changed the wording, and the cite to what the China source states from the World Snooker article. That should cover it. Thanks for your help MWright96! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the Guardian references (Refs 32, 79 and 82) that stated their stories are from the Press Association need to be mentioned in their respective templates
I'm not sure how you do this, any ideas Rodney Baggins? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 47 should include the fact it is a video we are being directed to
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, I have spotted some minor issues that are present in the article, none of which are severe enough to make me oppose its promotion to FAC. Nevertheless, nice work from Lee and Rodney on their work to the article. MWright96 (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing that – I'll have a good look through over the weekend and edit accordingly (unless Lee gets in there first!) Thanks for taking the time to go through this lengthy article in such a lot of detail, very much appreciated. Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You should have known! Working on the ref errors. Mirroring Rodney's comments, thanks for taking a look! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've covered most of these for you now, but I want to bring up a point for discussion that's been brought to light by some of your comments. The cue sport glossary entry for "red ball" states that red balls are also referred to as "red(s)" or "the red(s)", so after first using the full term "red ball" with glossary link, I think it's probably safe for us to drop the "ball" in later mentions of it, where appropriate. Sometimes using the full term "red ball" sounds slightly awkward and in some cases we might refer to "a red" when meaning a shot on the red (with the intention of potting it) rather than literally the red ball itself. A good example of this is "Cahill missed a straightforward red ball" which is really the "shot on the red" that he missed (he did actually hit the ball, he just didn't pot it!) so using "red ball" in this sentence loses that subtlety. Same goes for the other colours of course. Another example would be "but then missed the following black ball", where it's actually the shot on the black ball that he missed (again, he did hit the black) and to say "the following black ball" might even imply there's physically more than one black ball on the table. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You either missed this, haven't decided, or don't agree...? If you (and Lee) agree with the above, the specific bits I'd like to change are:
  • First round: "Cahill missed a straightforward red ball" > "Cahill missed a straightforward red" (here it's literally the shot on the red ball that's straightforward not the red ball itself)
  • First round: "despite needing only the final pink and black balls to win" > "despite needing only the final pink and black to win" (here "balls" just sound odd!)
  • Second round: "with just two red balls remaining" > "with just two reds remaining" (not sure about this one because in fact there were physically two red balls remaining so it's literally correct, so maybe we should say "with just two reds remaining on the table" to be precise?)
  • Final: "but then missed the following black ball" > "but then missed the following black" (it's the shot on the black ball that he missed, not the ball itself, and to say the "following black ball" might imply there's physically more than one black ball on the table)
  • Final: "but he overcut a red ball into the middle pocket" > "but he overcut a red into the middle pocket" (he overcut the shot, not the ball itself)
Let me know, thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are most likely right - I just haven't looked into it yet. I'll get on it Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After a period of mulling it over, I agree with the changes suggested above. MWright96 (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else from me on the matter. Will now support the article's promotion to FA. MWright96 (talk) 05:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Twofingered Typist

[edit]

I have done an extensive review and copy edit of the article's text and am satisfied that it meets the FA requirements of being well written, comprehensive and follows the guidelines in Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SMcCandlish

[edit]

Pretty much "just what a championship article should be", as it were. I'm running out of steam for the day, but suspect that my suggestions will be very minor, as I pore over it in more details in a day or so. I'll just add quibbles as they occur to me, below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would change "maiden" to "first". The former is an archaism, and in these days of roving bands of language-"reform" activists, it may attract the wrong kind of attention.
 Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The centring of one of the tables (the finals, as I recall) is not helpful, especially on a wide monitor. I would just have it flush left like usual.
Which table? The one for the final? That's in the template. I can change it back to left align, but prior it's always been either centralised or fully justified. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is quite a common thing. I'm pretty sure Rodney went through most of these earlier in the process, but if you see any, let me know. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comments

[edit]
I can perform a source review later today. --Laser brain (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your time! :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also thanks from me (co-nominator). Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Laser brain any update on this one? Thanks for your time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging FACCoordinators:@Ian Rose, Laser brain, and Sarastro1: - I think this one passes the criteria and the source review that has been given, unless there are any further issues. Thank you for your time. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging FACCoordinators:@Ian Rose, Laser brain, and Sarastro1: as co-nominator, I think we've covered everything now, the article has 7 supporters and the source review is completed. Thank you, here's hoping... Rodney Baggins (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Fn 7: What makes Chris Turner's Snooker Archive a reliable source?
  • Fn 31, 79, 82: Check the publisher
  • Fn 44, 93, 106: Missing publisher
  • Fn 102 fails verification, as the archive link doesn't actually go to a working display. I think you'll need a better source confirming where the championship was broadcast.

Thanks all from me. --Laser brain (talk) 11:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this - Rodney Baggins could you fix these refs for me while I'm away? The snooker archive I believe was published before, no? I know he worked for places like Eurosport [55], and is deemed as a "historian" by RS. Can't see too much of an issue with him. The rest should be easy fixes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: I've fixed ref.102 using a new working archive that shows the full Eurosport schedule for the championship from 23 April to 6 May — not sure how that one slipped through the net. As for all the others, I've not used the publisher parameter in any of these refs. because the work (newspaper) parameter is specified. In the case of The Guardian, the publisher is Guardian Media Group and in Template:Cite news it states that if the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (which it is here) there is no reason to name the publisher, so that's why I've omitted it. Refs. 31, 79 & 82 have the agency named as Press Association (former name of PA Media) because that's where the newspaper article's content came from, but refs. 44 & 93 have the author named because the content came from an inhouse author rather than an outside agency. In the case of ref.106, work (newspaper) is The National, author is given, but no publisher is given for same reason as above. However in this case the publisher is "Herald & Times Group", which is substantially different from the name of the work, but I'm in the habit of not specifying the publisher as long as the work parameter is specified, as I was told it's not necessary. Rodney Baggins (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that reply Rodney. That seems to cover all of the above. Do you know much else about Chris Turner? He's always be a defacto RS from my experience, but I have no way to check through the WP:SNOOKER archives to find out if it's ever been discussed before. Him being a recognised historian seems pretty good to me, but it would be nice to know if it's been discussed before. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Turner supplied the stats for Eurosport coverage. The Snooker Archive was his personal website. WP:SPS states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" so it is my belief that the Snooker Archive qualifies in this capacity. We should minimise our dependency on such sources though and the information it is being used to source can be located at the official World Snooker site: https://www.wpbsa.com/about/history/. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have swapped this ref out in that case. Hi Laser brain thanks for taking a look at this for us. Is there anything further for this review? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 3 November 2019 [56].

Frank Borman

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Frank Borman. At age 91, he is the oldest living astronaut. He commanded Apollo 8, the first Moon mission, and he and his crewmates became the first people to watch the Earth rise over the horizon. The article has recently passed a A-class review, with source and image reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "and moved to the better climate of Tucson, Arizona," surely an opinion? Ever been to Tucson in July?
    No, I've never been to Arizona. The source says that the dry climate was thought to be congenial, which is something I've encountered in other articles relating to the American West. Courtney Ryan told me the weather was nice there. (Has a look at the weather today) 33 °C (91 °F). Looks beautiful. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My sister lived there for a few years. I think I visited in June which was bad enough. Sorry about the tone.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No apology required. It's below freezing here at the moment, and we have only two weeks to go before the office turns off the heat. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He then went to Mansfield Junior High, where he tried out for the American football team." I would strike "American". The link is sufficient disambiguation.
    Redirected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite the fact that every one of the four forward passes he attempted was incomplete, the team went on to win the state championship." I would say "each" rather than "every one". He only threw four passes the whole season? or just in the game where he replaced the first string QB? What year in HS did this happen in?
    In his final year. I will double-check the source. I don't think the forward pass was as common back then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The forward pass is not common in high school football in general, relative to the professional level that we are conditioned for. Kees08 (Talk) 04:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything's possible in high school, basically. My high school's football team did not have a kicker one year until soccer season ended.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Borman says: "Probably because our cheerleaders could throw better than I, we were a strictly running team—I think I tried four passes all year and didn't complete one." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His first ride in an airplane was when he was five years old.[2]" I might say "had been" rather than "was".
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A year when he joined the Army would be useful.
    He entered West Point on July 1, 1946, and joined the Army on June 6, 1950. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but his skills were insufficient to qualify even at that level." I would cut "to qualify". I might even cut "even at that level".
    Cut. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "had equal seniority with those graduating the United States Naval Academy, " I would insert "from" after graduating as more common in AmEng.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was planning to commence a liberal arts degree at the University of Arizona." the "commence a ..." doesn't sound right in AmEng. This was presumably graduate school, so I might frame it as "and was planning to attend graduate school at the University of Arizona" or some such.
    The text just says "planning to spend the summer in Tuscon before getting a liberal arts degree from the University of Arizona". I don't know if it was a graduate degree or a second undergraduate one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems a bit odd he was assigned to West Point when the USAFA was starting up.
    Borman entered West Point in 1946, and graduated in 1950. The first USAFA class did not enter until 1955, and did not graduate until 1959, nine years after Borman. From memory you could still opt for the USAF as late as 1968. In addition to the 3,200 cadets and midshipmen who opted for the Air Force between 1949 and 1959, another 1,000 joined between 1959 and 1968. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure (I know a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who attended West Point in the 1970s and was allowed to opt because his father was Air Force) but you'd think the Air Force would want to send its officers to teach at the budding USAFA rather than West Point.
      I don't know what was the rationale behind the appointment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and signed his first house-building contract," This doesn't sound AmEng. Home construction contract?
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the Dilbert Dunker at the US Navy school at the Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida and on Galveston Bay.[38] " I would cut "the US Navy school at". I'm not sure it adds anything.
    Dunked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Donald Slayton" Why call him Donald rather than Deke?
    Deked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re his Apollo 1 testimony before Congress, I would use his quote to the effect that the question is whether you trust us or you don't. I can't find the exact wording offhand but I could probably search through my references if need be.
    Go for it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why single out Rumsfeld in particular? There were starting to be a number of space skeptics in Congress by then.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk)
  • I might say something about the risk of the Apollo 8 mission as no LM meant no lifeboat. Also about the intense training required given the mission flew only four months after Low's proposal was tentatively accepted, and was contingent on Apollo 7 being successful.
    Do you have a source? I would lift it from the Apollo 8 article, but it doesn't say it there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "capable of being quickly changed from passenger to cargo aircraft. " I might say "converted" rather than "changed"
    Changed, I mean converted. I think another editor asked for the opposite. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In the A-class review, I said Maybe converted instead of changed? I see changed as going back and forth as many times as needed, while converted is more permanent. Maybe my grasp of words is flawed. of being quickly changed from passenger, to which you replied Often between each flight. I still hold that changed seems better if its a back-and-forth thing and converted seems more permanent, but don't really care either way. Kees08 (Talk) 03:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going with "changed". Mainly because Boeing says QC stands for Quick Change. According to the Wikipedia, the change could be made in 30 minutes. By a Formula One pit crew Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May 1975, Borman was elected President and chief operating officer. " Is this elective or in some way appointive? I might also lower case the "president".
    Elected. Added "by the board".
  • The crisis years at Eastern were extensively covered by The New York Times back in the day, as Eastern was for many purposes a local company because of its operations at Newark. For example this and this and this. I would suggest that these would be good sources for the Eastern years beyond bios and the Sun-Sentinel article (though, of course, the SS is in the Miami area, where Eastern was actually based). I'd like to see these taken into account.
    I'll have a look at them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of which, the Sun-Sentinel article says "Eastern's profits began to slide almost as soon as deregulation began; 1979 was the last profitable year for the airline until 1985." but you say that "Profits jumped to a record $67.3 million in 1978,[105] and Eastern went through the four most profitable years in its history." and also that there was a profit in 1984.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:42, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was a personal defeat, but hardly a financial disaster; he received a severance payment of $900,000, and drew a consultant's fee of $150,000 a year from Texas Air until 1991.[105]" I would suggest adding "for him" after "disaster". There were many people who did not come out so well. He also seems to have been vice chair of Texas Air, according to the NYT articles I cited.
    Added "for him". (The firm I used to work for had to retrench hundreds of employees to pay for the golden parachutes of all the senior executives when it went private. Fortunately my own severance agreement was very generous, possibly because I had written it myself several years before.) The initial intention was that Borman would run Eastern for Texas Air as vice chairman, but this did not occur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's about it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you ping me when it's ready?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Anything more? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support All looks OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

That's anything from me. Let's hope that this article get promoted before his death. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the plan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links: all links to sources are working, per the checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 102: The publisher is given as "West Point". This the "Report to the Secretary of the Army by the Special Commission on the United States Military Academy" – surely, the academy itself isn't the publisher of this report into itself?
    Looks that way. West Point published it on their web site, www.west-point.org. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 137: Time, unitalicised (see 89, 127, 136)
    It's part of an online series on "the most compelling — and sometimes controversial — choices for Person of the Year" rather than the magazine itself. So Time is listed as the publisher, and therefore is not italicised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 154, 155: is "This American Life" the actual publisher: or is WBEZ?
    "This American Life" is listed as the publisher on the web pages, which are on www.thisamericanlife.org Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quality/reliability

Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maury

[edit]
  • "In 1998, they bought a cattle ranch"... and? That was 20 years ago, is he still there?
    Yes, he is still living in Billings, and still owns the ranch, although he seldom visits it nowadays. A Wikipedian tracked him down. [57] Although we know that his wife is now in a nursing home, I haven't found a source for this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Add that to the lede, that he's living in Billings. Currently, it reads like he's in Bighorn.
  • "he mentioned to his friend's father"- I am confused by this entire passage. This statement, in particular, seems like it should be in the paragraph below, it is very oddly placed as is. And I remain unclear on what the friend's father actually did in the end. What is this "third alternative appointment", I assume this is the direct placement program with WP? It seems Borman had already decided to go the Army route, yes? So am I correct that he abandoned using the GI Bill? If so, how? Wasn't he already ordered to go to the Army? And if he get the third placement, how was it that three people were ahead of him? And for most non-US readers, the relationship between the military and West Point may not be clear. I think this whole thing could use some clarification.
    Appointment to West Point is through political patronage. Each senator, congressman and the vice president gets to nominate candidates. (Nowadays five; back then it was just three.) In the late 19th century they started conducting examinations to rank candidates. For each vacancy they could name a principal candidate plus three alternatives in order of preference. Borman was incredibly lucky to get the nod from a third alternative (the Stephen Bradbury route). More typical is Buzz Aldrin, who was the principal nominee of his senator. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how about this:

His parents did not have the money to send him to an out-of-state university, and neither the University of Arizona nor Arizona State University offered top-notch aeronautical engineering courses at that time. His football skills were insufficient to secure an athletic scholarship, so he volunteered to join the Army, intending to qualify for college tuition under the G.I. Bill.[7] Borman took {passed?} the Army physical, and was told to report to Fort MacArthur on graduation from high school.

Borman also built model airplanes out of balsa wood. He was helping a friend build model planes when he mentioned to his friend's father that he wanted to go to the United States Military Academy at West Point. His friend's father told him that he knew Richard F. Harless, the congressman who represented Arizona. {Every year,} Harless was able to present one primary candidate and up to three alternatives for an appointment to West Point. Harless had not yet listed a third alternative and {what exactly happened so he ended up on it? the friend's dad arranged it?} The end of the war had changed attitudes towards joining the military, and the three nominees ahead of him all dropped out, so Borman went to West Point.[7][4]

I am still unclear on the last point - if he had already been ordered to report to the Army, how did he get out of that? IIRC, being in West Point is not legally being in the military? Is the some sort of arrangement here, or did he have to do something to remove himself from service? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Army will release you to go to West Point, even if you are already serving. (Since World War I there are also some appointments are reserved for serving members of the Army, Army Reserve and National Guard (85 regulars and 85 reservists today) but unlike some European countries prior service has never been a requirement.) Borman did pass the Army physical. No doubt he was in good shape. Had he not been, he would likely have still been accepted, as standards were low in 1946, with the Army releasing large numbers from active service while providing occupation forces in Europe and Asia. Arizona had a small population then and the whole state was just one congressional district. To get into West Point, you need a nomination from your congressman or senators, so personal contacts are essential. (In Australia we call such a process "stroking your member".) Appointment strictly on merit is not the American way, but competition is still fierce, and West Point is more popular in some districts than others. Each Congressman can have a total of five cadets at West Point at any one time. Usually, they allocate their quota by appointing one candidate per year. That way, there are four or five cadets from their district at West Point at any one time - usually one in each class. When those cadets appointed by the Congressman graduate or drop out, another slot becomes available. That's why in some cases a Congressman can send more than one person to an academy in a given year. I believe that in 1946 Harless could nominate one principal with three numbered alternatives. Today, he could provide up to ten alternatives; I'm not sure what the maximum number was back then. (No Congressman has been convicted for selling appointments since John H. Hoeppel in 1936.)
I like the way the narrative unfolds in the article. It talks about Borman's love of flying and building aircraft. It shows how this led to his wanting to attend an out-of-state school, which was beyond his parents' means, and therefore why he thought of the Army and West Point, and how it led to his receiving a Congressional appointment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The narrative is confusing. You mention his friend's dad and west point, then talk about his family and the army. How these two topics are related and thus in one para eludes me. Then in the next para we have his friend's dad again, then the army again, then west point again. I'm sorry, but this is not FA quality prose. It also lacks the details you note above, and while I'm sure you don't find this confusing, I certainly did and I suspect most readers will. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address your concerns by using the converssation with his friend's father as a frame, rewriting as follows:

Borman was helping a friend build model planes, when his friend's father asked him about his plans for the future. Borman told him that he wanted to study aeronautical engineering, but his parents did not have the money to send him to an out-of-state university, and neither the University of Arizona nor Arizona State University offered top-notch courses in aeronautical engineering at that time. His football skills were insufficient to secure an athletic scholarship, and he lacked the political connections to secure an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point. He therefore planned to join the Army, which would allow him to qualify him for free college tuition under the G.I. Bill. His friend's father told him that he knew Richard F. Harless, the congressman who represented Arizona. Harless already had a principal nominee for West Point, but Borman's friend's father convinced Harless to list Borman as a third alternative. Borman took the West Point entrance examination, but since his chances of a West Point appointment were slim, he also took the Army physical, and passed both. But the end of the war had changed attitudes towards joining the military, and the three nominees ahead of him all dropped out. Instead of reporting to Fort MacArthur on graduation from high school, he to went to West Point.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, need to reboot... Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Maury Markowitz: Satisfied that all your points have been addressed? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maury Markowitz: Quick ping in case you did not notice this. Kees08 (Talk) 22:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Kees08

[edit]

Copying comments from A-class review. Hope you don't mind I moved your comments too when relevant.

and the International Air & Space Hall of Fame in 1990

Once these are all addressed I will go through the article again. Kees08 (Talk) 04:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Any progress here? Kees08 (Talk) 01:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything remaining to be addressed? Hawkeye7 (discuss)`
A few, see above. Kees08 (Talk) 04:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kees08: Is there anything remaining to be addressed? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One New York Times citation has New York, New York as the location and another has no location
    Added to them all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • He to went to Instead of reporting to Fort MacArthur on graduation from high school, he to went to West Point.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • an to and? Eventually, 92 cadets were readmitted an graduated with the class of 1978
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you be able to address my memory that Borman was a stickler for excluding scientific experiments, tried very hard to make the mission only about going around the Moon before the Soviets, and later regretted it? I glanced for a source and did not see one, so maybe I am misremembering, but I am pretty sure it was Borman on that mission.
    As a rule, Borman hated experiments and thought they were a waste of time, space and fuel. "To Hell with the scientific community" (O'Leary, p. 170) I couldn't find anything about Apollo 8 though, except his resistance to taking a TV camera. (Serling, pp. 191-192) His recent interviews don't indicate that he has changed his mind about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking. If I do end up coming across that information (if it exists!), I will ping you and we can see if we want to include any of it. Supporting now, great work. Kees08 (Talk) 03:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those will be the last comments for this article. Great work. Kees08 (Talk) 01:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Coffeeandcrumbs

[edit]

That's it for me. I have copy-edited the article myself where I found non-controversial errors. Great work! Cheers. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 3 November 2019 [58].

Adele Spitzeder

[edit]
Nominator(s): SoWhy 06:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the most prolific German swindlers who pioneered the Ponzi scheme before Charles Ponzi was even born. The article received GA status in April and underwent peer review with much help from Gerda Arendt and Wehwalt, the latter agreeing to be my mentor for this nomination as well. This is my first FAC, so please excuse any mistakes I might make. Regards SoWhy 06:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt, Cassianto, SchroCat, and Tim riley: Sorry for the mass ping but I made some major expansions to the "public image" section after you supported. Would you mind reviewing those as well? Regards SoWhy 07:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kees08

[edit]

Passing comment, might want to work on your p and pp's in your citations. A p is used for a single page, pp is used for multiple pages. An endash is used in lieu of a hyphen when denoting a page range as well. Not sure I'll do a whole review, but wanted to point this out. Kees08 (Talk) 06:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for pointing it out. I didn't realize {{sfn}} supported pp. Regards SoWhy 07:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

ALT text is OK-ish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt File:Adele Spitzeder Karikatur Volksküche.jpg, the source does not specify a date but since it depicts something that has to have happened during Spitzeder's banking days and those were from 1869 to 1872, the publication must have happened in that period. Regards SoWhy 09:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the source "Nebel" and it says "Ende September 1872" (End of September 1872) on p. 91. Changed it accordingly. Regards SoWhy 18:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I added another image. Would you mind checking it as well? Also, I'm happy to improve the ALT texts if necessary. Regards SoWhy 15:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

[edit]
  • Very happy to see you here, SoWhy! My understanding is that articles can't pass FAC if they rely on {{Interlanguage link}} ... my information may be out of date, I'd be happy to discuss it at WT:FAC if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 11:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Define "rely" ;) - A ill link is helpful compared to no link. I recommended in the peer review to write at least stubs, for a nicer look, but have seen FAs with ill links, for example The Cloisters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My personal tolerance level is zero ill's at FAC, but I don't make the rules. If other reviewers think they're fine, then I'll quietly exit this review. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    SoWhy, would you please write stubs about the seven topics? - If not we should discuss this in general on the FAC talk, because an ill link is really more helpful to the reader than no link; it establishs sort of notability, and leads to more information. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the notion that having a ill is better than having no link at all (or a redlink only). After all, per WP:REDYES, placing red links to notable topics is encouraged and I don't see the harm in it being accompanied by a small link to an existing article on another project. So I think this should definitely be allowed. That said, I will endeavor to turn these red links blue. Regards SoWhy 14:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    When translating the topics in question, stubs suffice. The links look decently blue then, and the connection to more information in the other language is there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, stubs are sufficient. And, as I think I've mentioned, my grandfather was German-ish ... I'd love to have more German-themed FAs ... this isn't an anti-German thing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That thought never crossed my mind. I created the parents' articles now but it might take me a couple of days to do the rest, since opera and stuff like that is not my wheelhouse. Feel free to help out of course Regards SoWhy 16:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This one's news to me. I'm pretty sure I got The Founding Ceremony of the Nation through in 2017 with at least one ILL.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, read above: it's Dank's personal limit, but who wouldn't respect that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The notation for interlanguage links is intentionally meant to look like there's something that needs to be done that hasn't been done yet ... that conflicts with the message we're giving out about Featured Articles, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, we heard that you think so, and said that we respect that. I see it that way for real red links, while ill-links are links to articles, just in a different language, which means a world of a difference for me. Higher education for girls was rare at the time, so I'll probably write Höhere Töchterschule [de] eventually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. No desire to get into a policy discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda

[edit]

I gave detailed comments in the PR, read it again now, and am happy to support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Public image

  • "playing outside the bank and provided free meals" - needs a comma or some other way to not connect the meals to the bank ;) - better.
  • "The constant and deliberate long queues" - not sure that conveys what it is meant, but may be jut me. - "The constant and intentional long queue", - what's an intenional queue? keep simple?
  • "to up to 4,000 patrons" - what exactly? - per day? at all?

Thank you for expanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for the comments. I hope it's clearer now. Regards SoWhy 10:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first yes. Asked more pecisely for the others. Btw, I opened a peer review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spitzeder intentionally let long queues form so that she appeared more popular. I added a bit more detail and rephrased the whole thing, I hope it's okay now. I also clarified that 4,000 refers to the seating available. I'll check the PR later. Regards SoWhy 12:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that would be an intenionally long queue, no? - The new wording is fine, so only the 4,000 customers left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article now reads a tavern providing beer and food at discounted prices and with seating for up to 4,000 patrons. I'm unsure what is still unclear, could you please elaborate? Regards SoWhy 12:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was unclear about that I mean the third question, about the feeding of the 4,000. Is that number "ever", or "per day" or what? If ever, it doesn't seem high. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

[edit]

On first read, excellent. On more thorough reading, I would advise the following:

  • You need to go through and blitz some nouns in favour of pronouns. A general rule is once they've been named, follow each sentence with a pronoun. If ambiguity exists, such as in this case, Spitzeder being mentioned in the same sentence as another female/females, revert back to the name once, then follow the pronoun route. CassiantoTalk 07:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ehringer tried to flee with 50,000 gulden that she claimed was a gift from Spitzeder, but they were both arrested with the money" -- Was the money also arrested? Was the money used to finance their arrest? Stupid, I know, but it could be tighter. Suggest "...but they were both arrested for being in possession of the money", if indeed that was the case.
  • In "Early life" we jump from Adele to Spitzeder and then back again. I think I see what you're trying to do - to avoid the confusion between Betty and Spitzeder - but in places, it's really not needed. If you are calling Betty "Betty", then there can be no confusion with Spitzeder, despite them sharing the same surname.

Lead

  • They'll be some who'll want to know what a "confidence trickster" is. Rather than forcing them away to find out, a handy link upon first mention in the lede would be of benefit.
  • "Spitzeder was estimated to be the wealthiest woman in Bavaria." -- by who?
  • "The largest such newspaper in the city, the Volksbote was in serious financial troubles which it solved with a 13,000 gulden loan from Spitzeder.[57] The Volksbote in turn responded to each criticism in the Münchner Neueste Nachrichten by defending her business".[57] -- Do we need to repeat ref 57?
    • I merged the two sentences with a ";" which takes care of both the duplicate ref and the unnecessary partition of what is essentially information that belongs together. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- checked and all ok. A great article indeed. CassiantoTalk|

SC

[edit]

There are a few places where you have four refs together; it may be worth considering bundling the refs together to ease the effect on the eye. (I have a personal rule of three normally, but everyone's mileage differs).

Acting
  • "to quit the engagement": "quit" always seems a little informal to me. "Leave" would be a shade better
  • "offered a spot to work": is this an acting role she was offered? (Spot is a little too informal and unclear)
  • "She turned it down because at her mother's wishes who offered her 50 gulden each month for life": this needs to be sorted – I think I know what you're trying to say, but it's a bit garbled
  • "attributed her lack of success to her appearance": this may need a little more explanation, as this is the first mention of her appearance (did the newspapers say she looked too old, or frumpy, or unattractive, etc)
    • The source literally says "Allein, Sie hatte keinen sonderlichen Erfolg, woran übrigens weniger der Mangel an Talent als vielmehr ihre äußere Erscheinung die Schuld tragen mochte, welche für die Bühne offenbar nicht besonders geeignet war", which can be translated roughly as "However, she did not enjoy particular success, not from a lack of talent but rather more likely because of her outward appearance, which was apparently not particularly suitable for the stage". I will check if I can find a source that has a better description. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with her girlfriend Rosa" I know you deal with the question of her sexuality in a section below, but I think you either need to soften the term, ("her friend") or drop in a couple of words of explanation
    • I don't think softening is a good idea since it would also change the meaning. But it might be good to have a sooner mention of Ehringer in the paragraph. I'll see what I can find. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just noticed that I mixed up the names here, Rosa was her second girlfriend but when she returned first she was with Emilie. Mea culpa. I'll go through the sources again and add more info where I can find it. Regards SoWhy 10:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Growth
Image
  • "barking orders": this comes over as less than neutral, as there are many ways to give orders. If there is a source that says "barking" (or similar), then it's best to say that "according to xxxx she 'barked her orders' to everyone", or whatever.
Personal life
  • I'd be tempted to scrap this section and add some of the info further up (to the part where you have "with her girlfriend Rosa" – other bits, such as Emilie Stier, you can either footnote or drop into the chronology); the final sentence you can put at the end of the Bankruptcy section, where the rumours about her homosexuality part is. (One of the reasons I'd get rid of it, is because it only deals with the homosexuality and nothing else. It's a brief mention, which is good, but can be used further up to give weight to the story as it develops).

An interesting subject, by and large nicely covered. – SchroCat (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Thanks for all the suggestions, I think I have addressed them all. Please recheck if you have a minute. Regards SoWhy 19:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent work, and thank you for the additional work you've put in over the last day or so. The personal life section reads nicely now, and has enough there to stand on its own, and the changes you've made elsewhere all work well. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

Excellent to see a newcomer to FAC, and with such a sound first attempt. I shall be supporting, but a few very minor comments before that:

  • Early life
    • "National Theatre Munich" – I see the WP article omits the expected comma before "Munich", but I don't think we should follow suit here. Piping as National Theatre, Munich would follow the orthodox English form. (I see the National Theatre Munich article was created commaless, by the late and much-missed Viva-Verdi, in whose absence I'll raise the point of the missing comma on that article's talk page.) As the Spitzeder article is in AmE there is, I suppose, a case for making that National Theater, Munich here, but I don't press the point.
    • "quit the engagement" – "quit" was much used in English centuries ago but is now seen as either old fashioned, legalese or Americanese. Better to have a plain "leave"
    • "She turned it down because at her mother's wishes who offered her 50 gulden" – not English. Perhaps, "She turned it down at the behest of her mother, who offered her 50 gulden" or suchlike.
    • "attested her the necessary talent" – unexpected use of the verb. I don't think you can attest somebody: what is needed here is something like "attested that she had the necessary talent".
    • "attributed her lack of success to her appearance". This is a bit vague. The reader may reasonably wonder in what way her appearance was inimical to success.
  • Growth of business
    • "from an insider tip to a large company" – I can work out what this means, but it could be put more clearly and elegantly. Perhaps the point would be as well made simply as "quickly grew into a large company".
  • Later life and death
    • "Spitzeder was released from prison in the fall of 1876" – the Manual of Style bids us avoid dating things by season unless the seasonality is relevant. (What is fall in the US – or autumn elsewhere in the English-speaking world – is spring in the southern hemisphere). The month would be better here.
    • "sensational exposes about her" – "exposés" needs the acute accent (even in AmE, surely?)
    • "she published her memoirs" – in the lead it was a singular "memoir". Best be consistent.
    • "The constant scrutiny of the police was too much for her to bear though, so she... " – the "though" is a touch chatty. I might make this something like "The constant scrutiny of the police was too much for her to bear, and she ...".
  • Literature
    • We have a mixture of 10- and 13-digit and hyphenated and unhyphenated ISBNs. The MoS bids us use hyphenated 13-digit version when possible, if appropriate. There is an excellent tool here to convert and hyphenate where needed.

That's all from me. I hope these few minor suggestions are helpful. – Tim riley talk 10:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now. I greatly enjoyed this article, and it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. We could argue about the lack of hyphens in the ISBNs, but life really is too short, and I hereby drop the subject. If, as I hope and expect, the article is promoted to FA it will be a fine achievement on the main author's part: creation (translation or no) to FA within a year. Very ritzy. Tim riley talk 16:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry about that. I forgot that the Citoid engine adds the ISBNs as well, I thought only about those in the bibliography section. Too bad they are not hyphenated automatically though. Regards SoWhy 18:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by WBGodric

[edit]
  • ... and a cross around her neck, often insulting her customers with crass language.[27][46] This, however, actually enhanced her standing with the common people.[46] ... - How? Does the source go into the details? I think a reader will be inclined to know the reasons about how exactly the crassness and insults led to enhancing her reputation. ∯WBGconverse 08:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Winged Blades of Godric: It's a bit like the "He's saying it like it is" approach populists often use. She insulted customers and told them point blank that she won't give them any securities and in return, they said "Wow, she is so frank with me, I should give her my money!". I expanded the section a bit and rephrased that part, I hope it's clearer now. Regards SoWhy 12:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources are all working, per the ext. links checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 49 requires pp.
  • Ditto 55
  • Ditto 57
  • Ditto 60
  • Ditto 61
  • Ditto 62
  • Alphabetic sequence: I'm not sure what principle you've applied in sequencing the references list, where no author is provided. No doubt there's a logic in what you've done; could you explain?
  • "Historische Commission bei der königl" requires "in German"
  • Likewise Hitzig etc, 1873, Nerger, Nettersheim, Plickert, Schumann, Spitzeder 1878, Strohmeyr, Währisch, Winkler
  • Be consistent about the inclusion of publisher location in book sources. You generally omit this, but see Nettersheim
  • Quality/reliability. I am not competent to judge the quality/reliability of the many German language sources, but have no reason to suppose that they are not of the standard of the English sources, which appear to meet the necessary criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thanks for the source check. I apologize for the pp mistakes, those I added after the first reviews and I forgot about it. I added the language parameter and removed the one publication location. As for sequencing, I ordered the list by author's last name and where there is no author, I used the publication's name (hence "Augsburger Allgemeine", the name of the newspaper, comes before "Bachmann"). I couldn't find any guideline on how to do it correctly, so I went with what seemed right. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears. Regards SoWhy 20:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not worth bothering with, unless someone else complains. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

Greetings, SoWhy! Since it looks like this is your first spin through FAC, it's customary to get a spot-check of your sources for any potential verification or plagiarism/copyvio issues. I've requested one. --Laser brain (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: I have no idea what that entails but if I can help in any way, please let me know. Regards SoWhy 14:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I don't know if it helps but the main biography I used, "Nebel 2018", is partly available on GBooks. I just didn't know how to add that to the article in a meaningful way but it might be useful for a spotcheck. Regards SoWhy 06:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do this, but it'll probably take me a few days.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Would you be willing to spot-check a few of the German-language sources? Many thanks, if you have time! --Laser brain (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no time until 5 September, concert and full house. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I ordered the Nebel book on ILL, but it hasn't arrived yet. I hope it will in the next couple of days.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably not allowed but I could just send you scans of any pages you need from the one I have Regards SoWhy 07:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, but I have the book now and will start with the check.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: The number of issues found below for just one section is troubling, and may indicate a larger issue with accuracy in citations or in interpreting the sources. @Carabinieri: Based on your audit so far, do you feel the issues warrant a larger audit? --Laser brain (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've started on going through another section. I'm sorry about my slow pace.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain and Carabinieri: I'm truly sorry for that. When I started out, I translated the de-wiki article and added refs later. Then I replaced the previous ref system with Harvard-style refs. Somewhere during that process, I must have mixed up some of the sources. Most of those problems should be related to the sections that existed before the ref-style-switch but may I ask for a day or two to ensure that the rest is accurate? I don't want to cause you more work than absolutely necessary. Regards SoWhy 05:47, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain and Carabinieri: Okay, I went through the whole article again, copyediting where needed. There shouldn't be any problems left if I didn't miss anything. Thanks for your patience. Regards SoWhy 12:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carabinieri

[edit]

Hi, I have a quick question. The page numbers on all the references to Nebel appear to be slightly different from the edition I'm using. For instance, the information about her move to Vienna and her schooling there appears on pages 26 an 27 in the book I have, while the article gives page 21. What edition of the book are you using? I have the second edition (from 2018), but the weird thing is that the first edition also appears to have the same pagination as the second based on the table of contents at DNB.--Carabinieri (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some of the later page numbers line up, so maybe this is a mistake?--Carabinieri (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Carabinieri: I might have used GBook's pagination for some of the earlier refs that I added before I had the book myself. I'll do a quick check and fix any such mistakes. Regards SoWhy 18:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Carabinieri: I fixed those I found, as I suspected they were all among the first I had added for this source based on the GBooks version which has wrong numbering. The rest I added after I had the book in hand and thus should be correct. Btw, my edition is the first edition, also dated 2018. Weird... But again, sorry for the inconvenience caused and thanks for taking the time! Regards SoWhy 18:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've only gone through the "Early life" section, but I've found a few issues:

  • "Her parents met in Berlin" A bit pedantic, but ADB only mentions that they both worked at the same theater in Berlin, not that that's where they first met. Nebel (p. 23) is a better source.
    • Fixed. --SW
  • "which led to the family moving to Munich". Not mentioned by Währisch, should probably also use Nebel.
    • Changed to Strohmeyr since Nebel is clearly incorrect here (he writes the move was in 1833 when Josef already died in 1832). --SW
  • "When Josef Spitzeder died after only one performance on 13 December 1832" Währisch only says that the death was sudden, not when it happened nor that it was after only one performance.
    • Fixed. --SW
  • "Betty then married Franz Maurer and took an engagement at the Carltheater in Vienna in 1840, where Spitzeder attended a Höhere Mädchenschule run by the order of the Ursulines; after a year, she entered the convent's boarding school" Why cite Killy/Vierhaus?
    • Probably a mistake, removed. --SW
  • "In 1844, she persuaded her mother to move back to Munich" As far as I can see, Nebel only says that they moved back to Munich, not that she persuaded her mother.
    • I'm sure I read it in one of the sources but I cannot find it anymore. Fixed. --SW
  • "At age 16, she went to a renowned school led by Madame Tanche" I don't see where Nebel says renowned
    • Should have been Währisch 2010 which says it was "sehr bekannt". --SW
  • "she was tutored in foreign languages, composing and piano-playing" That makes it sound like that was at school, but according to Nebel it was after she left school.
    • So it was. I think originally the wording was correct originally but with this edit it was changed and I didn't catch it. Fixed now. --SW
  • "In 1856, she debuted at the Hofbühne in Coburg to great acclaim playing Deborah and Maria Stuart." It's Mary Stuart in English. This should probably link to the plays rather than the historical figures. Neither source mentions 1856, Nebel says 1857.
    • Strohmeyr (p. 133) says 1856. Changed accordingly to reflect both sources. --SW
  • "In her memoirs, she claims that both the duke of Coburg and the duke of Württemberg praised her talent" That makes it sound like the praise was for her performances as Deborah or Mary Stuart, but as far as I can tell it's not.
    • She only played those two roles in Coburg, so it can't have been for anything else. But I'm open to suggestions on how to rewrite it. --SW
  • "Since there were no vacancies at Coburg, she left the Hofbühne to take an engagement at Mannheim before returning to Munich for a few guest roles at the National Theatre" Should be pp. 20-21.
    • So it should. Fixed. --Sw
  • "Contemporary sources such as Der Neue Pitaval attested that she had the necessary talent but attributed her lack of success to her appearance" That suggests there was more than one such source, but the article only cites one.
    • Rephrased. --SW
  • "Her "masculine" behavior is generally highlighted, smoking cigars, being loud and bossy, having no interest in clothing that accentuates the female physique and enjoying the company of young and beautiful women" This is a direct translation of Nebel.
    • Rephrased. --SW

I'm also a little confused by the format of the Währisch reference. Why does this use cite book? I'm also unsure about the use of the autobiography and queer.de as sources. I'm not sure about whether queer.de should really be considered a reliable source, but in any case it's just a summary of the Nebel book. So why not get the information straight from the horse's mouth and cite Nebel? It's a much better source. I'm also not sure how reliable the autobiography of someone known as a fraudster is. Most of the information from this source could also be cited to Nebel.--Carabinieri (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I used cite book because cite web does not allow to cite a chapter but this source comes with an overview and a more detailed subpage. If you know of a better way to handle this, I'm open to suggestions. I removed the queer.de source and replaced it with the underlying source where needed. As for the autobiography, it contains some details that Nebel does not, so I added Nebel alongside it. I think that should be okay, shouldn't it? As for the rest, I added comments above. Thanks for taking the time! Regards SoWhy 13:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about the long delay. I've checked a little more. Here's what I found:
  • "She continued to pay interest in cash, which was not common, leading to favorable word-of-mouth advertising" I was unable to verify this. The Wagener reference doesn't have a page number, which makes it difficult to check. The only thing I was able to find is that Spitzeder paid that first investor in cash. The other source is writing about the year 1872.
  • Sorry, I mixed up "Wagener" and "Währisch". The latter has Sie gab ihm für ein Darlehen von 100 Gulden einen Monatszins von zehn Prozent und zahlte ihm für zwei Monate im Voraus die Zinsen gleich bar auf die Hand. Diese Methode sprach sich in Windeseile herum und in kürzester Zeit kamen sehr viele meist einfache Leute aus den Vorstädten Au und Giesing und drängten ihr ihre Ersparnisse förmlich auf. That said, this and the previous sentence basically are the same, so I combined them into one. --SW
  • "Officially founded shortly afterwards in 1869, the Spitzedersche Privatbank quickly grew into a large company" After what exactly? She started lending money in 1869, so I'm not sure I understand the timing here. Also, while the article says she began lending money in late 1869, Schuman says it was in the Spring of that year. Also, Pfluger doesn't say anything about the bank becoming a large company, only that business went well.
  • Agreed. I thought I had squashed all de-wiki translations, I must have missed that one. Changed accordingly. As for the start, I must have missed the part in Schumann about the spring of 1869 but it of course needs mentioning. I added it. --SW
  • "Because her customers were mostly workers from the northern outskirts of Munich, especially the town of Dachau, her bank came to be known as "Dachauer Bank" Neither source mentions the northern outskirts of Munich.
  • Source from the next sentence was missing there which verifies "aus dem Norden der Großstadt". --SW
  • "she soon had to rent additional rooms in her hotel to accommodate her forty or more employees" Währich says up to 40, as do some of the other sources.
  • Changed. Not sure how that happened. --SW
  • "Contemporaneous English-language publications such as Harper's Weekly referred to it as the "Spitzeder swindle"." I was unable to find this in the Harper's Weekly article, but I probably just overlooked it. What does the it refer to? It sounds like it's referring to a Ponzi scheme general (which wouldn't make much sense if no one else had used it at the time). If it's just referring to Spitzeder's actions, I don't see any reason to mention this. --Carabinieri (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a different issue, sorry for the confusion. I added the right one. As for the reason for inclusion, I gather that this was the name used to describe this kind of scam since "Ponzi" did not exist yet. That English-language sources had its own name for it seems significant to me. Again thanks for the work and no worries about the delay. I added notes above as well. Regards SoWhy 08:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carabinieri, just to be clear, are you now satisfied with the results of your spotcheck? That is, do you feel confident that the sources in general are used accurately and avoid plagiarism and/or close paraphrasing? Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: It seems that Carabinieri has gone dark for the time being, and we need to wrap this up. Do you have any sense of where they were in this process? --Laser brain (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: I know as much as you do, i.e. what they posted above and my comments regarding it. I assumed that they were now satisfied but I had no further contact with Carabinieri other than the discussion above. If there is anything I can do to help, please feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy 15:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SoWhy: Sorry for the delay—I'll look over the article today and attempt to assess where the spot-check was. --Laser brain (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Harvey 1992, p. 166.